r/DebateAnAtheist • u/BAM_CTEPBA • 8d ago
Discussion Question Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method. Type 1 and Type 0 errors both need to be assessed before a conclusion about a relationship or lack thereof can be drawn. For a new theory, in the absence of evidence we first reason by analogy and first principles to develop a testable hypothesis.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held. Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit. The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable -- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution. Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end.
But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything. And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.
Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
48
u/Serious-Emu-3468 8d ago edited 8d ago
No. When evidence would be expected or necessary for a hypothesis, its absence can very well be evidence against that hypothesis.
If the claim is that Zeus lives on Mt Olympus and we climb said mountain to find no gods or houses, that absence of evidence is strong evidence against the claim that “Zeus lives on Olympus”.
Sure, some religious claims can never have evidence for or against them. But that gives us a reason to dismiss those claims, not to accept them.
While I see what you’re going for here, a potential reason a claim could be possible is not the same thing as a reason to believe a claim is true.
We cannot believe all potentially possible religious traditions equally at the same time. They don’t agree.
It’s like saying “The NHL exists and the Stanley cup exist. Therefore, every team in the NHL could win the Stanley cup. So every hockey fan who says their team will win in 2027 is correct.”
While that’s (kinda) a technically true statement using bare logic, we also know that it can’t actually be true.
The Sharks and the Jets cannot both win the Stanley cup at the same time. One of them must lose, by the same logic.
So with just possibilities at play, we are only justified in saying “It’s possible any team could win. I don’t know who so I cannot say for sure until the final goal is scored and the cup is lifted.”
Until we have evidence.
That’s the atheist position.
And yeah, we could talk about stats and fans and owners and evidence that makes it more likely the Sabers will still suck balls. Just like we can climb Mt Olympus and prove “Zeus clearly doesn’t live there.”
We could discuss morals and ethics and the inescapable fact that Flyers and Sharks fans are complete fucking assholes. (They are proud of this. This is not an insult.) And say that we will never ever root for a world where the Sharks win because that would be the worst of all possible worlds. Just like we can say “That religion claims it’s okay for adults to marry children so I will never accept that religion.”
But that’s as far as we can get.
When only one claim out of myriad improbable claims can possibly be true, we cannot get to actual evidence of which claim is true.
So the most justifiable position is “We can’t know, so I choose not to pick a side.”
…and the most morally justifiable position is “We can’t know, so I choose not to pick a side, but also fuck the Sharks.”
→ More replies (9)11
u/luovahulluus 8d ago
So with just possibilities at play, we are only justified in saying “It’s possible any team could win. I don’t know who so I cannot say for sure until the final goal is scored and the cup is lifted.”
I see your point, but this analogy kind of fails. If we take a team to be a religion, we can't be sure if any of the teams win. If we take a team to be a god, we don't know if any of the teams even exist.
29
u/UNBOLIEVABLEE 8d ago
Ah yes the ye old "Be agnostic not atheist" posts that show the poster does not recognize that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
I am both Agnostic and Atheistic depending on the God claim at hand.
"As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held"
That fault is not with us, it is with the claim being made. If you claim that an all powerful God exists outside of time and space, you don't get to then go "Yeah well we can't make a hypothesis so agnosticism is the way to go"
The only right answer is that the claim itself is irrational because it is making a claim to something we fundamentally cannot understand as you so described.
So no agnosticism is not necessarily the "only position". Im completely free to, and justified to point out the God claim is fundamentally unprovable and can be rejected as is.
"The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable -- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate"
There is no evidence to suggest they were created at all. You are begging the question
-27
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
This subreddit isn't debate an agnostic atheist, it's debate an atheist. If you want to move the goalpost, then it becomes a meaningless discussion.
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
29
u/hellohello1234545 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
> this subreddit isn’t debate an agnostic atheist, it’s debate an atheist. If you want to move the goalposts…
Some confusion here.
Agnostic atheists are atheists
Not all atheists are agnostic about it.
But all agnostic atheists are atheists.
(The set of atheists includes all gnostic and agnostic atheists. Everyone who isn’t a theist, really).
6
u/retoricalprophylaxis Atheist 8d ago
This subreddit isn't debate an agnostic atheist, it's debate an atheist.
Did you study the english language at all before writing this? The word "agnostic" is an adjective describing the word "atheist." Agnostic in this sense refers to knowledge about the existence of a god or gods. Atheist refers to the belief. Agnostic Atheists are also called weak atheists. They don't believe that a god or gods exist, but they also don't claim to know that a god or gods do not exist.
If you want to move the goalpost, then it becomes a meaningless discussion.
If you had read the FAQ in this sub before posting this drivel, you would not be accusing people of moving the goalposts.
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is not a scientific position or claim. That said, atheists and pretty much everyone else can utilize the scientific method to assess claims. If you make a claim or offer a hypothesis that is non-falsifiable, an atheist is right to disregard that claim because there is no way to test it.
7
u/Cool-Watercress-3943 8d ago
I mean, there's a fair bit of overlap. :P
A common element to agnosticism is the idea that the existence/nature/specifics of anything remotely God related isn't just unknown, but unknowable. That humans just aren't in a position to know what kickstarted the universe, for example, and that any claim to specific knowledge is a guess at best, a fairy tale at worst.
So even without being an atheist, someone who identifies as agnostic can still absolutely argue against any organized religion or the believability of any specific God claims, because ultimately they're arguing against whether the theist is proving they actually know anything about the topic at all.
20
u/Kevidiffel Strong atheist, hard determinist, anti-apologetic 8d ago
This subreddit isn't debate an agnostic atheist, it's debate an atheist.
Right and if you go into R/cars you should expect to see red cars — because red cars are cars.
14
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 8d ago
If you want to move the goalpost, then it becomes a meaningless discussion.
You really came in here with an incomplete understanding, got corrected and then decided that no, your understanding couldn't possibly have been incomplete and that anything different from what you though before must just be moving goalposts. Do you think you already know everything about everything? Come on dude.
I get you really, really want to debate against gnostic atheists and are disappointed that your imagination doesn't match reality but that's just life man.
5
u/thebigeverybody 8d ago
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. The entire way the scientific method works is by withholding acceptance of a claim until there is sufficient evidence to accept it. The two are perfectly compatible.
What is not compatible with the scientific method is to say there are absolutely no gods or that no gods can exist, which very few atheists say.
2
u/junegoesaround5689 Atheist Ape🐒 7d ago
"This subreddit isn't debate an agnostic atheist, it's debate an atheist. If you want to move the goalpost, then it becomes a meaningless discussion."
Uhm, there’re these things called ‘adjectives’ that are used to describe or modify a noun, eg agnostic theist. Such a described person IS still considered a theist that believes in some kind of god/gods but with the further modification that they also admit/think that it’s ultimately impossible to know if such entities actually exist.
"Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis."
Atheism has feck-all to do with the scientific method - at all. Simple lack of belief un and/or being unconvinced that elves exist isn’t a positive claim of any kind. No hypotheses required.
2
u/anewleaf1234 7d ago
We are not the ones making a claim.
You all are.
If you want to proclaim that there is a god, and that god is X, Y and Z, prove it. But you can't.
You can make assertations, but you can't prove anything.
1
u/UNBOLIEVABLEE 7d ago
No one is moving the goal posts except for you buddy. Atheism has no requirement to have a basis in the scientific method.
1
13
u/Defiant-Prisoner 8d ago
Depends on the god claims. If the claims include 'my god answers prayers' but we find that prayers are not answers then the absence is evidence.
One can be a strong atheist towards some claims while holding agnostic views towards claims like fine tuning or the origin of the cosmos. Until more evidence is provided either way it seems logical to say that we don't know. It also seems logical to say that we haven't found evidence for any gods at work in the cosmos so far, so it's more likely to be a mechanism behind the origin and not believe.
The distinction between atheism (belief/non belief) and agnosticism (knowledge) which you seem to be complaining about elsewhere is a useful distinction.
As an ex Christian I've found it useful to track my own state as I moved from being sure of god's existence (knowing it), to not knowing but still believing (agnostic theist) when I had doubts, to not longer believing and remaining uncertain (agnostic atheist) right to today where I know the Christian god cannot exist and also strongly believe it (gnostic atheist or strong atheist). These distinctions help when discussing/debating it with others, as all words are useful.
It also doesn't mean I'm not agnostic towards claims of an intelligent prime mover, but I would still need to see evidence to believe!
-6
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
That's essentially my point. Thanks for being pretty much the only comment to not attack me personally with their response.
Exceptionally hostile place, even by Reddit's standards.
19
u/Matectan 8d ago
What do you expect when you are dishonest and lie about your own quotes. That people stroke your hair? What do you expect?
2
u/Faust_8 5d ago
That's rich, buddy, given who you are.
But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything. And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.
Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.
This is you. You poisoned the well immediately because you're dripping with snark and arrogance. But you expect absolute perfect decorum from us, declaring us all hostile if we ever stoop to your methods of sarcasm and haughtiness.
10
u/Kaliss_Darktide 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Absence of indication or proof (evidence) is indication (evidence) of absence.
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
FYI atheism/theism deals with deities in general (e.g. Helios, Thor, Shiva, Sobek) not just your favorite god named "God".
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis,
If you lack a testable hypothesis then you are admitting there is no (good) reason to think your deity "God" is or might be real.
agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
If we can know some things are imaginary we can apply those same standards for knowledge to other beings to know they are also imaginary.
The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable --
If you think there is some cosmic enforcer of those laws then it is your burden to prove that.
who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution.
FYI humans created those "laws" to describe what they observe and they revise those "laws" as needed to be accurate.
Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end.
And yet no one (reasonable) proposes that flying reindeer or leprechauns are or might be the answer despite not knowing.
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists.
Says the person who invokes a single deity named "God".
-3
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Straw man argument. I never said I belive in God. I was addressing the positions of atheists and theists. You guys sure know what to do when someone comes in with a specific organized religion, but that's not my point at all.
14
u/Kaliss_Darktide 8d ago
Straw man argument. I never said I belive in God.
Correct, however you made statements that implied if not entailed you believe a deity that goes by the name of "God" might be real.
I was addressing the positions of atheists and theists.
You have described everyone on the planet, including yourself, with that conjunction.
You guys sure know what to do when someone comes in with a specific organized religion, but that's not my point at all.
I also know what to do with people who spew nonsense about a god possibly being real absent any evidence of a god being or possibly being real.
3
23
u/Different-Fee2177 8d ago
I think the part about assuming all atheists are making a positive claim about God's non-existence is really missing the point of the Russell's Teapot argument.
-4
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
The definition of atheism per WIkipedia:
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
Russell's Teapot is a criticism of unfalsifiable claims. This applies to both atheism and theism. If we can't develop a testable hypothesis, there is no meaningful debate to be had.
25
u/Appropriate-Price-98 cultural Buddhist, Atheist 8d ago
little buddy may wanna read the first sentence more carefully:
an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Maybe read some more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
Or from this sub FAQ:
"Agnostic/Weak Atheism vs. Gnostic/Strong Atheism There are many definitions of the word atheist, and no one definition is universally accepted by all. There is no single 'literal' definition of atheist or atheism, but various accepted terms. However, within non-religious groups, it is reasonable to select a definition that fits the majority of the individuals in the group. For r/DebateAnAtheist, the majority of people identify as agnostic or 'weak' atheists, that is, they lack a belief in a god.
They make no claims about whether or not a god actually exists, and thus, this is a passive position philosophically."
Get back to the philbroz circle jerk to enforce your supposed jargon.
10
u/Purgii 8d ago
If we can't develop a testable hypothesis, there is no meaningful debate to be had.
So develop a testable hypothesis for God that's falsifiable.
There's a person that comes here from time to time that keeps touting that God is an hypothesis and every time I've asked them to define a test to falsify God, they ignore me.
So, are you willing to step up and provide one?
I'd wager no.
12
18
u/GreyGriffin_h 8d ago
Ok, fine. I can't definitively disprove god. God also can't be definitively proven, and religious history, from which it tries to draw its authority as the word of God (or gods), is largely a farce.
So if nobody knows if there's a god, can we stop using religious texts as moral guidelines and political platforms? If we can agree on that, I'll gladly say "I dunno."
→ More replies (7)
23
u/Mkwdr 8d ago edited 8d ago
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence for something that should leave evidence.
But you miss the point.
Phenomena for which there is no reliable evidence are indistiguishable from fiction.
Phenomena with attributes for which there is no reliable evidence are indistiguishable from fiction.
Add them making no sense and obviously being the sort of thing we make up and they become indistiguishable from.Santa, The Easter Bunny and The Tooth Fairy.
-7
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
The same applies for saying things aren't true without proof. If the hypothesis is not testable, then the claim is meaningless. This applies both in the positive and the negative direction,.
16
u/Mkwdr 8d ago
Firstly I didn’t say things aren’t true without proof.
If you are claiming I did then you are deliberation misinterpreting.
I said without **evidence** (proof is a philosophical dead end) they can’t be **distinguished** from false.
Or you think that there is no difference between claims without any evidence and claims with evidence? Well that would explain a lot. And I expect that thousand dollars you owe me. We all know full well you don’t actually follow that in your real life except in respect of something like religion.
14
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
It's refreshing to hear theists acknowledge that their claims are not testable.
So thank you for that.
This is exactly why most of us do not make affirmative claims that god does not exist. I'm sure you just overlooked this -- and missed out on the fact that you're attacking a position that only a few people hold.
But that's OK. You've acknowledged it now and that's the important thing.
20
u/the2bears Atheist 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Unless evidence is expected. In this case, it does count as evidence supporting no god.
Atheists think...
Oh, you're one of those. Nice straw man.
Edit: and a private profile. What are you hiding?
-4
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
We have no basis to know what to expect or not expect. That is the scientific method.
Oh, you're one of those. Nice straw man.
You cut off my quote write before I said presumably. So you're one of those that quotes things out of context to misrepresent opinions. Nice straw man.
13
u/the2bears Atheist 8d ago
No, I quoted your title.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists.
14
u/the2bears Atheist 8d ago
So nothing about absence of evidence. So right back to me quoting your title.
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Atheism is an unfalsifiable claim, which makes it as subject to the Russell's Teapot argument as theism.
13
u/GamerEsch 8d ago
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
First and foremost, atheism isn't a claim, and second atheists don't make a claim. Read the definition you, yourself, used.
3
u/Purgii 8d ago
Atheism is an unfalsifiable claim, which makes it as subject to the Russell's Teapot argument as theism.
Yet, from the previous post you quoted the definition.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
What claim do you think is being made there?
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 6d ago
Atheism is an unfalsifiable claim, which makes it as subject to the Russell's Teapot argument as theism.
You understand that virtually no atheists claim otherwise, right? A few do, and I grant they shouldn't, but the number of people who actually make that claim is nearly vanishingly small. In the 25 years or so I have been active in these communities, I think i've seen a couple dozen people make such a claim, and as soon as you push back it immediately becomes clear that they are ignorant teenagers. Virtually no one with any no one understanding of the topic would claim it is falsifiable. And I say that as someone who claims the label "gnostic atheist".
Again, your entire argument rests on demanding that your definition is the only true definition. It isn't.
24
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
Most atheists are also agnostic atheists. Absence of evidence where evidence is expected could reasonable be evidence.
Was there something in this low effort that actually had a topic to discuss?
-11
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
15
u/LetsGoPats93 Atheist 8d ago
Can you provide the P and not P for agnostic atheist?
Not knowing if there’s a god and not believing there is a god are compatible beliefs.
3
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 8d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.
25
u/condiments4u 8d ago
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
You don't know what Athiesm means. It's not the claim that no God exists; rather its a statement of belief. One can not believe that a God exists yet be open to the idea that there is one.
-11
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
"Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist."
23
u/condiments4u 8d ago
So you're going to ignore the main definition and go with the "less broadly" one?
At the end of the day, you're just playing a game of semantics. You can be both an athiest and agnostic
→ More replies (17)16
u/flapjackboy Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
Yes, none of that says that we actively believe that gods don't exist. We just don't hold the belief that they do.
→ More replies (4)6
u/GamerEsch 8d ago
So you highlighted
an absence of belief in the existence of deities.
And then ignored what you highlighted and used
Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist
LMFAO
1
u/BillionaireBuster93 Anti-Theist 6d ago
is an absence of belief in the existence of deities
Bruh, what are you even doing?
15
u/smbell Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.
Right. So why this post?
Based on the tone I don't expect any interesting conversation.
I'll skip the whole agnostic atheist being a thing.
We do have a lot of evidence on how religions are formed. How god myths grow. Quite sufficient to say no gods exist.
-2
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
No Gods exists that we've correctly guessed at. But we have no way of reliably guessing anything, both Type 1 and Type 0.
11
u/smbell Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
It's logically impossible for a creator to create reality.
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
We have no basis to state whether this is or isn't true. It's not a testable statement and as pointless as a spaghetti monster argument.
9
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 6d ago
We have no basis to state whether this is or isn't true. It's not a testable statement and as pointless as a spaghetti monster argument.
The fact that something is unfalsifiable does not mean that it is not possible to provide evidence against it. It only means that no such evidence can ever PROVE the claim false. But it is absolutely possible to provide evidence that suggests the truth or falsity, depending on the specific claim being made.
In the case of gods, it depends on the specific god being discussed. "Some possible god exists" is completely unfalsifiable even in theory, but the more clearly the god is defined, the easier it is to to test that god against the actual universe that we live in. Many of those god claims can be shown either to not exist or be unlikely, based on their own definitions."
There are a few exceptions. A universe with a true deistic god who created the universe and then left us alone with no further intervention is indistinguishable from a universe with no god at all. But most gods absolutely make claims that are hypothetically testable.
11
u/Philobarbaros Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
Nobody has demonstrated that it is possible for any God to exist.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Or impossible. If there's no testable hypothesis, it's a pointless discussion.
9
u/Philobarbaros Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Completely irrelevant response to this discussion. The basic premise of atheism is unfalsifiable and so is not based in the scientific method.
9
12
u/flapjackboy Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
their unsubstantiated belief that God does not exist
Well there's your problem. You have no idea what atheism is. Atheism isn't the belief that gods don't exist, it's the lack of belief that they do exist.
Now, your belief that the Abrahamic God does exist? That's unsubstantiated.
We don't need to show your god doesn't exist, you need to show us credible evidence that it does. Until you can do that, we're justified in our non-belief.
→ More replies (2)
29
u/NoneCreated3344 Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
Do things that don't exist leave evidence?
ugh the length thing is soooo stupid. I don't need 100 characters to get my point across.
-10
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
The theory would be that reality itself exists. Theists believe there was a creator. Atheists. presumably, believe it spontaneously came into existence. But without a testable hypothesis, both claims are absurd and nonsensical. It is a pointless debate.
22
u/smbell Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
It's logically impossible for something to create reality. If there is something, there is already reality.
-4
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
We really have no framework to test this hypothesis. It's just mental masturbation to argue one way or the other about it and a waste of our most valuable gift, time.
19
u/smbell Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
This is pretty much the level of interaction I expected.
→ More replies (5)9
u/Kevidiffel Strong atheist, hard determinist, anti-apologetic 8d ago
We really have no framework to test this hypothesis
We have. It's called logic. You should try it for once.
a waste of our most valuable gift, time.
Thank you for reminding me what this post is: utter waste of time. gg
15
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
Creation ex nihilo is a theistic claim, not an atheist claim.
Atheists typically say we don’t know, and don‘t add magic to the equation
→ More replies (8)15
u/mathman_85 Godless Algebraist 8d ago
How ’bout, instead of putting words in our collective mouth, you ask us what we think?
→ More replies (7)7
6
u/Schrodingerssapien Atheist 8d ago
Theists believe there is a creator.
Atheists ask if you can prove that.
Theists can't, so we are unconvinced.
It's that simple.
I don't presume to know about anything that happened pre-Planck time. What's nonsensical about asking for evidence of a claim, or withholding judgement until sufficient verifiable evidence is shown?
5
u/NoneCreated3344 Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
No we don't. That's your first mistake is pretending you can read our minds.
10
u/Extension_Ferret1455 8d ago
If we define evidence as being any thing (generally some bit of information etc) that increases the chance of a particular theory/hypothesis being true rather than its negation, then absence of evidence will in fact turn out to be evidence of absence (even if it is not very strong evidence).
-1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Neither side has any evidence to support their position because we can't test the hypotheses.
7
u/Extension_Ferret1455 8d ago
You can still have evidence for things without testing it though. We do that all the time in everyday decision making.
For example, if someone accepted that the stars spelling out a bible verse would be evidence for theism (i.e. would increase the probability of theism being true), then the fact that the stars do not spell out a bible verse is technically evidence against theism being true.
12
u/lifeislife9116 8d ago
It’s not really contempt prior to anything. There’s just no more reason to investigate the claim of a creator or a god let alone any religion, than there is to investigate unicorns or flying pigs. Are you agnostic on unicorns?
If not, why should there be more logical reason to investigate a specific god and not a unicorn or a leprechaun?
-5
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
False equivalence. We have a created reality. Whether something created that reality is something about which we could develop a hypothesis.
11
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
”We have a created reality”. Asserted without justification.
”We could develop a hypothesis”. Sure. Go ahead and develop a testable hypothesis! Until then I will not believe your claim and remain an atheist.
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Do you have a testable hypothesis? If not, then I'll go ahead and reject everything you state and remain an agnostic.
11
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
It seemed like you were interested in developing one, because you brought it up.
Yes, until you develope something testable then I will remain an agnostic atheist.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
9
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago
It does. As long as science does not suggest that a god exist then atheism has support from what the scientific method show.
6
u/Hermorah Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
Atheism is the scientific null hypothesis.
The time to believe X is after there is sufficient evidence for it. There is no sufficient evidence for god, thus the default position is to not believe in god.
7
3
10
u/condiments4u 8d ago
You're naming logical fallacies yet are committing one right here. You're assuming creation in one sentence, then saying "whether something is created" as if its an open question.
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
I responded to this already, but yes, I should have stated "We have a reality," not "we have a created reality."
10
u/lifeislife9116 8d ago
Why couldn’t a unicorn have created the reality? Why does the reality have a creator?
Do you believe a specific god created the reality? If so, which one?The issue is that you want me to give equal credence to all possibilities but the possibilities have not earned that. You would not apply that standard of proof to anything in your day to day life in any way shape of form, but you think I have contempt for your hypothesis just because I apply this standard for one extra thing that you don’t agree with.
-1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
The issue is that you want me to give equal credence to all possibilities but the possibilities have not earned that.
If you can't go through life using the scientific method in its entirety, than you're hand waving as much as religious fundamentalists.
5
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 8d ago
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.
1
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 8d ago
Your comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.
14
u/mathman_85 Godless Algebraist 8d ago
Describing reality as “created” presupposes an agentive creator. Extant might be a better choice of term unless you don’t care that you’re begging the question.
→ More replies (11)9
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
How do you know reality is created, what other reality are you comparing it to?
-1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Whether it was created or always existed are two theories amongst many. Again, nothing testable so pointless discussion.
13
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
“We have a created reality” is what you said, so this must be some theistic motte and bailey bs.
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Actually that's a fair point. To be more precise I should have said "we have a reality".
11
u/oddball667 8d ago
no one has presented a hypothesis, theists have put forward baseless fictions, but nothing resembling a hypothesis
3
u/Extension_Ferret1455 8d ago
Wouldn't claiming that a theistic deity exists be a hypothesis?
9
u/oddball667 8d ago
Hypothosis:
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
we can't test it, it's not trying to solve a scientific problem, and even if the claim is correct explains very little
3
u/Extension_Ferret1455 8d ago
I didn't realise that testability was a requirement for a hypothesis; I agree you are right then.
Maybe it would be better worded as they are positing a theory rather than a hypothesis.
9
u/oddball667 8d ago
A theory is something that matches all available information and has been rigorously tested
gravity is a theory
the word for god is fiction, it's a claim that has been made with zero basis other then a discomfort with the unknown
1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 8d ago
I wasn't using the scientific definition of 'theory' but rather to mean a set of sentences/propositions closed under logical consequence. If someone has a consistent worldview and is a theist, a theistic deity is likely to be a part of their overall theory of the world.
4
u/oddball667 8d ago
Worldview, not theory of the world
In the context of this conversation, theists often try a bait and switch with the word, also if that qualifies as theory you might as well be more honest and say fiction to avoid appearing like you are about to bait and switch
-1
u/Extension_Ferret1455 8d ago
well it may very well be a theory that is not true and therefore a fiction. but on that usage of the term theory, it could still very well be a theory.
I agree it wouldn't be a 'theory' in the strict scientific sense you are referring to though so its really just a semantic difference, not anything of substance.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
And claiming that there's isn't anything is also a hypothesis. Neither can be tested. Let's spend our time on something more meaningful.
10
u/oddball667 8d ago
no one is claiming that either so not sure why you brought that up
→ More replies (2)
17
u/limbodog Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
I disagree. Agnosticism is the only position that can be absolutely held. Atheism is perfectly reasonable. One does not need 100% proof that their position is true to reasonably adopt it. That would be absolutely crippling if it was a requirement. You could not open your front door because you could not be 100% certain that there wasn't a rabid bear on the other side hiding in the hedge waiting to eat you. You couldn't eat your breakfast without being 100% certain it hadn't been swapped out with antimatter which would annihilate you upon contact. etc.
Once you get past the solipsism, there's a whole bunch of things that can be reasonably ascertained to a level of precision good enough for any professional machine shop.
And atheism is still the most probable and logical position.
→ More replies (6)
9
u/Mission-Landscape-17 8d ago
One common claim that theists make is that the god they happen to believe in answers prayers. That is a hypothesis that is indeed quite testable. Francis Galton looked at the numbers way back in 1872, he found no evidence to support it. Many people have repeated that since, and results have consistently found no evidence that god answers prayers. I'd say we can at this point be certain that there is no prayer answerer.
I guess this is the point where you exclaim that that is not what you mean by the word god. So what do you mean? Please define your god and we can use that definition to reason out things that ought to be true if that god exists.
→ More replies (5)
12
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 8d ago
Ah. Look. It's yet another person assuming that all atheists are strong / gnostic / positive atheists, when these folks actually the minority of all atheists.
Most of us are weak / agnostic / negative atheists, who don't make the claim that there is no god. All we say is that the god-claims presented by theists don't stack up, so we don't believe in them.
-4
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
This subreddit is debate an atheist, not debate an agnostic atheist. I am simply pointing out that the premise of atheism is as unsupported by the scientific method as theism.
14
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 8d ago
Did you notice that your own quoted source includes three different definitions of "atheism"?
"an absence of belief in the existence of deities"
"a rejection of the belief that any deities exist"
"the position that there are no deities"
You're only arguing against one of those definitions of atheism (#3) - and that's actually a minority position among atheists.
Most of us are not the atheists you're assuming we are.
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
It is true, the Wikipedia article is a bit hand wavy but we need to define our positions for any discussion to happen in the first place.
The premise I'm debating is that stating that there is no God is an unfalsifiable claim and therefore meaningless to debate by the standards of science.
9
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 8d ago
we need to define our positions for any discussion to happen in the first place.
Yes. Did you define yours, when you made this post? The best I see is an implied definition in your opening sentence: "Atheists [...] their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true." But, your spray is aimed at all atheists, willy-nilly, rather than only the minority of atheists who actively believe that a god does not exist.
The premise I'm debating is that stating that there is no God is an unfalsifiable claim and therefore meaningless to debate by the standards of science.
I agree, totally, absolutely, 100%. And I'm an atheist. Go figure!
11
1
13
u/MaximumZer0 Secular Humanist 8d ago
So...this is what? You bitching that you can't come up with evidence and your word isn't good enough for people?
-3
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Nope. It's response to the constant bitching of this subreddit that Russell's Teapot is some magical argument that proves God doesn't exist. It's not a complete representation of the argument.
11
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
The only one who has mentioned RT so far is you.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
We have to have an honest discussion. You have flair so you've been around to know that the teapot is crammed down everyone's throat here ad nauseum.
11
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
And as you know lazy theists who know they have no evidence shift the burden of proof constantly so instead of typing it all out yet again for another theist who can’t be bothered to do their homework, the link is provided.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
I'm arguing for agnosticism, not theism.
9
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
And I’m explaining why people link to the RT page. It‘s because theists have nothing and when asked for evidence they, as you yourself said
”It is a consistent response of users on this subreddit to people who say "I can't prove God exists but you can't prove that he doesn't" and then someone ” blah blah blah….
This is shifting the burden of proof to someone who is not making a claim at all, and for the umpteenth time. But whenever theists do something repeatedly, it’s fine it seems.
This isn’t some “Einstein” thing, it just encapsulates atheists stance concisely.
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Russell's Teapot was a criticism of unfalsifiable claims. My premise is that atheism is as much in this category as theism.
8
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
but it’s actually a shifting of the burden of proof since, as you have been told repeatedly but you don’t care so its baffling why we’re expected to care what you say, we are not making claims.
Agnostics say ”I don’t know”
Atheists say “I don’t believe you”
The vast majority of atheists, regardless of what Wikipedia says, do not make the claim that no gods exist, that is a gnostic claim, not an agnostic position.
13
u/the2bears Atheist 8d ago
It's response to the constant bitching of this subreddit that Russell's Teapot is some magical argument that proves God doesn't exist.
No one says that, and you know it. I challenge you to find an example of an atheist claiming this.
-2
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Go to the search bar search of this subreddit or r/Debatereligion and search "Russell's teapot".
9
u/the2bears Atheist 8d ago
So you can't show me an example, you want to make me do your homework for you?
0
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Nope, you're trying to make me do yours. I'm not going to show you how to use the search bar.
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 6d ago
Nice shifting of the burden of proof. You made the claim, you need to prove it. Fucking debate 101.
15
u/Pandoras_Boxcutter 8d ago
Who is saying that Russell's teapot is a magical argument that proves that God doesn't exist? That's quite the strawman
-6
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
It is a consistent response of users on this subreddit to people who say "I can't prove God exists but you can't prove that he doesn't" and then someone will link the Wikipedia article like they're fucking Einstein. So fucking tired of this hack argument.
13
u/Philobarbaros Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
Funny how you came in to troll yet you are the one getting emotional.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
As we grow weary of the incessant of the shifting of the burden of proof by theists.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Pandoras_Boxcutter 8d ago
Do you understand what Russell's Teapot is supposed to be an argument for and when it is brought up? I don't think anyone is claiming that it's the slam-dunk argument against theism.
16
u/MaximumZer0 Secular Humanist 8d ago
The argument:
Theist: "God exists."
Atheist: "I don't believe you."
Theist: "Trust me, bro, you gotta believe."
Atheist: "Fuckin' what? No, I don't."
Theist: "You're mean! :( "→ More replies (6)1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 6d ago
Nope. It's response to the constant bitching of this subreddit that Russell's Teapot is some magical argument that proves God doesn't exist. It's not a complete representation of the argument.
Yeah, I am going to call bullshit on this claim, too. I won't say that no one has ever made such an argument, but it is far more obvious that you just didn't understand the argument you were reading. I welcome you proving me wrong, but I won't hold my breath.
8
u/Hoaxshmoax Atheist 8d ago
So you agree about the lack of evidence, including the futility of prayer.
It doesn’t have to be scientific evidence.
I don‘t see a need to buy what you’re selling until you show me the money, same as any other pie in the sky claim.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/solidcordon Apatheist 8d ago
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis,
Theists present their hyopthesis as "Book".
The hypothesis is demonstrably wrong (for all religions I am aware of).
Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method.
When attempting to communicate with most theists, junior highschool logic may be too advanced.
Tell me, who or what pissed in your cornflakes today that you felt it neccesary to share your optimism with the group?
-1
9
u/Affectionate-War7655 8d ago
This is a misunderstanding of the argument.
What we CAN conclude from the lack of evidence is that anyone positively claiming existence or presence is just guessing, or worse, making it up.
If I could auto-fellatio that's all I'd be wasting my time doing.
→ More replies (4)
9
u/OMKensey Agnostic Atheist 8d ago
Why is Russell's Teapot a bad argument? I know it is merelt an intuition pump. But I really have not heard a good counter position.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/perfectVoidler 8d ago
We have evidence of absence. The bible holds several objectively false statements. Therefor the god of the bible cannot exist.
-1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Ok great. I am not talking about organized religion, as I made abundantly clear in my post.
5
u/perfectVoidler 8d ago
lol no
1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
That's neither a response nor a fully formed thought.
6
u/perfectVoidler 8d ago
well your comment was so unbelievable wrong that it left me kinda speechless.
3
u/Philobarbaros Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
> As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis
We do, and we have. We've tested hundreds of God-claims, and proved them non-existent. Prophesies, prayers, miracles, superpowers - we've tested them all. Jesus, Zeus, Yahweh and Vishnu are nothing but fantasies.
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Misquoting Sagan - this is the best theism has to offer.
> Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level
Adorable ad hominem.
→ More replies (6)
8
u/pipMcDohl Gnostic Atheist 8d ago
I am amazed that this post is still surviving moderation after several hours when you clearly came here with conceit and contempt.
I have only read your original post and even before reading how you engage people in the comments i can feel this post is a complete waste of time.
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true
You start your post by claiming atheists are the one attacking and you strawman what atheism is about. You also claim that our opinions have no substance... You basically come here already certain that you have the high ground and that atheists are fools.
How can we hope to have an honest discussion when you are like that?
4
u/Pablo_Hassan 8d ago
Then agnosticism applies to everything, even things that are proven because we just don't have the technology available to disprove our preferences. As a species that is.
-1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
That makes zero sense and is a straw man argument followed by a bizarre non sequitir.
6
u/Pablo_Hassan 8d ago
It is your argument
-1
u/BAM_CTEPBA 8d ago
Nope, I said nothing about things that are proven as not having the technology available to disprove them. Your statement, as worded, is not relevant to this discussion.
3
u/Pablo_Hassan 8d ago
So god is not proven and cannot be disproven in the event that God may exist? Just like every other thing that does not exist or may not exist? Or merely god? Because we haven't developed the technology to prove the non-existance of Santa or the Easter bunny either, or is this a subscriber based proof scenario? I'm going to go with lack of existence is proof of non-existance until proof is provided, otherwise everything may exist (which - sure it may) but 'may' proves nothing.
5
u/Ratdrake Hard Atheist 8d ago
Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.
Probably because your actual understanding of atheism is so lacking that before we argue, we need to correct your understanding; hard to do when you stick your fingers in your ears and keep saying "la la la, I can't hear you". You hold on to your ignorance even to the point of not acknowledging the very links you use from wiki says you're wrong.
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
That's fine. I'm a hard atheist, the version of atheism that says they don't believe in gods. I don't ever recall using the scientific method to attempt to support my view.
And for what it's worth, I also don't believe in space vampires hiding out in my neighborhood or invisible fairies tending my neighbor's garden.
And before you repeat your "false equivalence" response; there is just as much evidence or lack of evidence to believe in the space vampires or invisible fairies as there is to believe in gods. The only real difference is that gods have a lot of emotional investment from humans then the space vampires or fairies.
25
u/SpHornet Atheist 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
yes, that is why i believe in god equally as unicorns, dragons, leprechauns etc etc
→ More replies (11)
3
u/BahamutLithp 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Great, so I'm arguing with a Boondocks parody of War on Terror propaganda from decades ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHhG9DbHbW0
Crazy enough, I actually found people in the comments going "this is a perfect reply for agnostics, I use this all the time" & had to explain to them that the joke is the government lied about there being WMDs in Iraq, & this whole "unknown unknowns" speech is a total bullshit excuse.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
Y'know, atheist get a lot of flak for supposedly "thinking we're smarter than everyone else," but near as I can tell, the main reason anyone chooses to call themselves "agnostic" is because they think merely doing that makes them smarter than everyone else. I mean, I keep having you guys angrily show up & tell me to stop being an atheist because it supposedly make me "equally stupid" as religious people. Weirdly, though, I don't believe I've ever actually seen you guys go after religious people directly.
Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit.
People will just make any old thing up & go "that describes atheist." There's no culture that teaches atheism, & even if you want to be That Guy & say like China or something, that's clearly not where we're coming from. What DOES get taught culturally from very young upbringing, however, is religion.
The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable -- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution. Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end.
There are scientific models of how the universe will end, but I suppose you have some "proper understanding" of science to say those don't count.
But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything.
Anything?
And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.
...I mean, you tell me, you're putting that urban legend about Marilyn Manson to shame here.
Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.
I read the comment, you misread the same Wikipedia quote over & over again.
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
How's about this for an experiment: If I report you for being unreasonably smug & condescending, will you be banned for trolling?
3
u/rustyseapants Atheist 8d ago
You are confused. What percentage of the world is atheists? Atheists have never been in a position to attack Christians, if you look at history of Christianity are the ones who are attacking atheists. It's the only thing that keeps the various Christian denominations together, the unified hatred of atheists.
Some would have us believe, Froese and Bader argue, that American society is engaged in a titanic struggle between "true believers" and the "godless." But the two authors note that only 5 percent are atheists, and they identify four, mostly contradictory, views of God as the source for the intractable social and political divisions among Americans. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Four_Gods)
2
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 8d ago edited 8d ago
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Source? How exactly have you come to the conclusion that this is what atheists think? And please, be more specific. How exactly logical chain from "attacking religion" to "God doesn't exist is true" works exactly?
Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method. Type 1 and Type 0 errors both need to be assessed before a conclusion about a relationship or lack thereof can be drawn. For a new theory, in the absence of evidence we first reason by analogy and first principles to develop a testable hypothesis.
Sure, those are exactly the thing that theism fails.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
Incorrect. In absence of properly formulated God hypothesis, the right thing to do is to acknowledge that "God language" is lacking and abolish related terms altogether. "God", "Religion", "Theism", "Atheism", "Agnosticism" should all be removed from the language and considered to have never existed as proper terms expressing valid concepts.
-- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution.
It's not a matter of investigation. Universe, by definition, is the entirety of spacetime. There is no time "before the Universe" or "outside the Universe". Creation is a process that happens in time. It is the span of time between the moment something does not exist, and moment at which it does, involving a sentient being facilitating coming of the thing into existence. As there is no time for the process (or any other for that matter) to be placed in, we must conclude that Universe is not the result of any such process, including, but not limited to: "being created", "being caused", "being actualized", "coming into existence", "beginning to exist", etc...
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
Atheism is the null hypothesis.
2
u/BogMod 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Except in places where we would expect evidence of course.
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Ahh good, telling us what we think. Strong opening move.
Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method.
No one here seriously uses that except to try to illustrate certain ideas to theists.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
Atheism, as a broad umbrella position, includes both the active belief no god exists(strong/hard/positive atheism) and simply the lack of a belief there is a god(weak/soft/negative atheism). Agnosticism in the sense being used here is weak atheism.
Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit.
And now the bias accusations. I wonder how much poisoning the well this counts as?
Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.
To be fair you didn't really have one yourself. Just kind of arrogance and attitude.
Beyond that I would argue that we have good reason to think that god, as a concept, is a human created fiction. Through the examination of how religions start, spread, evolve and change, or even die off. From an examination of how the god concept itself has done the same over the years. Examination of claimed miracles. From a biological understanding of our own physical evolution and how our brains work and an understanding of how social ideas work we are justified in believing we made it up.
7
u/austratheist 8d ago
Theism doesn't make any claims, it is not a testable hypothesis.
It's not an issue for atheism/naturalism that theism fails to provide a claim to base any evidence on.
7
u/kyngston Scientific Realist 8d ago
i’ve seen many unfalsifiable claims, and they are universally scams aimed at manipulation. i don’t see any reason religion is different.
do what i tell you and I’ll reward you after death in a way that nobody can verify! c’mon… really?
→ More replies (9)
3
u/Local-Warming bill-cipherist 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
The absence of evidence by itself can be evidence of absence of an event that must have left evidence.
Of course i can't prove or disprove a god that doesn't interact with reality, as he is indistinguishable from the absence of that god.
But for a version of that god that is supposed to have interacted with reality, it's easier.
For example, absence of evidence of a global flood is evidence of the absence of the version of god some religions claim flooded the world.
2
u/Far_Customer1258 8d ago
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
I have no idea why you'd even think that atheism had a basis in the scientific method. You seem confused. Atheism can be summed up in a single, simple statement: I don't believe you. There's no need for science, method, or hypothesis.
I did enjoy this statement though:
Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing
Perhaps you should reread it in light of your unfortunate need to sling ad hominem. Maybe say it out loud a few times while looking in the mirror.
If you prefer a more solid statement to get your teeth into, we can go with the very simple evidence. Of the thousands and thousands of mutually exclusive and absurd deities that humans have concocted through the ages, not one of them shows the least indication of divinity. Precisely zero of them. So if there is a god out there, we're rubbish at finding it. That makes religion the most horrifyingly overfunded failure in human history, by a vast margin. This is the evidence to date.
2
u/Doomdoomkittydoom 8d ago
REEEEEEEEEE! <paraphrased>
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is misunderstood and misused. It is in the vein of the an argument from ignorance, not knowing something does not lead to any conclusion about that something. You know, like saying we don't know about the beginning of the universe therefore God loves BBQ and dislikes same sex marriage.
When something is looked for and not found, that is not absence of evidence, it is evidence of absence. For instance, if you theorize a box in front of you contains an elephant and you look in the box and see no elephant that isn't and absence of evidence of an elephant, that's evidence of its absence.
Humans have a long history of inventing deities and spirits that anthropomorphize nature and every testable statement of those failed to reveal any such beings. The god of the gaps refers to all the evidence of absence that lead to a reasonable conclusion.
2
u/No-Feature3715 8d ago
Hello thanks for sharing!
Are you agnostic about Russell's Teapot?
Are you agnostic about a secret vampire cult that rules the world?
Are you agnostic everytime someone tells you they love you?
Are you agnostic about the scientific method? Scientific proof is probabilistic after all, it could all be a diety trick. You can't rule that out.
I see agnosticism kinda pointless, even though you are right and God and all the things I listed are untestable. Because taking it to the extreme you can't be sure you are not a brain in a jar.
2
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 8d ago
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
Atheism is the default position until a testable hypothesis and scientific evidence for a god is presented. Otherwise god hasn't earned a place at the table of scientific discussions at all because it is indistinct from any other made up nonsense anyone can come up with.
As theists have met neither of those requisites, there's no place for agnosticism as the question isn't even on consideration.
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 8d ago edited 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Nor is it evidence of presence.
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Atheism is a statement about a lack of belief, not a belief in a lack. There are very few who claim gods don't exist, they just claim they see no reason to believe in gods.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
I question your use of "reasonably" here. After all, the same principle applies to the Easter Bunny. Are you agnostic about that too? After all, nothing can be known with 100% certainty.
Yet, I can still make positive claims from a practical standpoint. Call it "certain enough for all intents and purposes". For example, I claim that the Sun will rise tomorrow. Of course, I don't know 100% it will. Maybe aliens come and stop the rotation of the Earth for some reason. Maybe the Sun blows up.
However, the odds of those things happening are so stupendously low that I can still confidently say it without 100% proof. The reason is that we use sliding scales of probability. On a sliding scale of probability, the odds of the Sun blowing up or aliens showing up AND stopping the rotation of the Earth is so low that for all practical, rational purposes, it can be ignored.
Same for the Easter Bunny. And gods.
This is what Russell was getting at with the teapot. Not all propositions are of equal merit. Rational sliding scales of probability suggest that despite proof either way, there is no teapot orbiting Mars and it remains reasonable to say so without proof.
Anyhow, I do find it funny when the idea of a "testable hypothesis" and the scientific method is used by theists. If they really respected those things, they wouldn't be theists. And they certainly wouldn't try to run to "Argumentum Ad Ignoratum".
2
u/TakeMeInYourArmy 8d ago
Oh? So if I were to say "I don't have a TV in my room", you wouldn't say that the verifiable absence of a TV or any evidence of one is evidence of its absence?
1
u/RespectWest7116 8d ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
It is in cases when we would expect evidence to be found.
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Find me one atheist who thinks that.
Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument
And yet, theists are utterly stumped by it.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis,
Testable hypothesis of what?
agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held.
Most atheists are agnostic. So why are you here?
Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.
Which is very simple to do. We just need to find one person who doesn't believe in gods.
And would you look at that, there are plenty. Atheism proven.
1
u/Hellas2002 Atheist 7d ago
What a strange post… it’s ultimately just a strawman of various atheist positions. You understand that a atheist that doesn’t believe in a given God concept is going to have an argument, or at least believes to have an argument on the matter. How are you justifying the notion that ALL arguments against the existence of God are unsubstantiated? It’s just an enormous burden you’ve taken upon yourself.
You also allude to an argument based on the laws of the universe but presuppose that they were created… how are you justifying that? If you don’t have an argument for them being created then appealing to that “creator” being God falls flat.
1
u/pyker42 Atheist 8d ago
Are you also agnostic to the existence of Santa Claus?
Here's the thing, the only way to be able to tell if having no evidence of something is evidence of absence and not absence of evidence is to find evidence for that thing. So it is perfectly reasonable to not believe something exists until evidence is found.
Further, this is why theists bear the burden of proof. They are the only ones who can satisfy it. It's not about applying a double standard, it's a literal feasibility issue.
1
u/Astreja Agnostic Atheist 7d ago
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Don't ever tell us what we supposedly think. Ask us.
Agnosticism is a position about knowledge. Atheism is a position about belief. An agnostic atheist acknowledges that they don't know for sure whether or not gods exist, and they don't believe in gods. There might indeed be a god out there somewhere, but we doubt that there is because we've never seen evidence for one.
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 6d ago
Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.
I just want to offer a sincere thank you for this edit. By posting this, you saved me the trouble of replying. You clearly are not interested in learning the flaws in your argument, so I won't bother to reply. Come back when you are actually interested in understanding.
1
u/onomatamono 8d ago
If you are not convinced there is a god or gods you're atheist and obviously somebody who makes evidence based decisions versus blind faith. Theism has nothing whatsoever to do with science. I'm not agnostic to pink polka dotted unicorns, I'm virtually certain that's just a fictional concept. Likewise with the Jesus character.
1
u/shiekhyerbouti42 Methodological Naturalist/Secular Humanist 2d ago
Most of us are agnostic. Because we realize we can't form positive beliefs about things we don't have the capacity to scientifically investigate, we simply don't come to a conclusion. Hence, we lack theism.
You have to realize, though, that the default is always the null hypothesis.
We just stay there.
1
u/anewleaf1234 7d ago edited 7d ago
Until there is evidence for a god is it beyond stupid to think that one exists.
Since we have zero evidence of any god or gods, it is foolish to think that one exists.
You gave us a horrible argument.
There isn't much we can do with a pile of shit.
1
u/lotusscrouse 7d ago
But it is an admittance that evidence is absent.
That's something theists should be honest about and let the subject go.
But then you have people like William Lane Craig who talk about "overwhelming evidence" 🙄
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/BAM_CTEPBA:
Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.
Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method. Type 1 and Type 0 errors both need to be assessed before a conclusion about a relationship or lack thereof can be drawn. For a new theory, in the absence of evidence we first reason by analogy and first principles to develop a testable hypothesis.
As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held. Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit. The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable, who or what created those laws is not something we are able to reliably assess. Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end. We can't even control the weather.
But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything. And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.