Atheists and proof

[Kdtym10]

On several threads, some atheists have said they would believe in God/the Divine if they had proof. If you’re an atheist what would that proof look like to you?

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

It is true because it is observable and measurable.

You could say “the Good thing about the Divine is he exists whether you belief in him or not” (Kdtym10)

@Kdtym10 Are you serious? That's just ridiculous and is the same as saying

"the Good thing about the Tooth Fairy is she exists whether you belief in him or not"

Looking forward to someone trying "Evidence is personal" in the Old Bailey!

You've heard of eye witnesses?

@1Corinthians13 "You've heard of eye witnesses"

Yep. And it's not treated as particularly reliable in a court of law, particularly if there is no corroborating evidence.

Ok but I dont think they're rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of personal evidence are they

some atheists have said they would believe in God/the Divine if they had proof. If you’re an atheist what would that proof look like to you?

The OP could hardly be clearer. Atheists duly replied with ideas of persuasive proofs. Not one of us said "If somebody else says they experienced a personal revelation, particularly if that experience is not replicable, can only be described in psychological/emotional terms or as 'faith', and I don't know the person."

It's not even eye-witness, is it? It's like giving evidence to the cops, saying "I just know X did it, I've got a feeling about it."

A slippery response, typical of the religious. On the one hand they say their belief in God is not within the realm of rationality and evidence. Yet they also maintain a position that their “evidence” is cogent, because it is “eye witness”. Eye witness evidence by the way is not the same as a “feeling”. It’s about what someone claims to have seen actually happen. And even this is fraught with biases and problems with memory.

I was replying to the claim you dont get " personal " evidence in court. Not being slippery, thanks.

" They say " ie you have a stereotype so it doesn't matter what I say.

Some nasty people on here. Hiding the thread now.

I’m sorry you feel this way. But I think you are wrong to feel this way. This is not nasty or personal. You have put your claims on the table by entering this discussion. I know you think that should be beyond reproach, but this is not how it works. My claims are vulnerable to question too.

The scientific mindset is not as brittle and open to offence as the religious mindset is. I think this tells you something about the respective positions.

I’m not being nasty but I understand how the questioning of such values can be taken in this way. And it doesn’t matter how much we tread around it. I don’t believe in gratuitous rudeness but there is no polite way to say that what you hold dear, everything you have built your life around, is completely wrong (epistemologically).

What have these eye witnesses actually seen?

@Ok but I dont think they're rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of personal evidence are they"

Well,no. Not sure what your point is!

Not ridiculous to me

“The scientific mindset is not as brittle and open to offence as the religious mindset is. I think this tells you something about the respective positions.“

History and this thread would say otherwise.

There seemszyk be a lot of atheist aggression in this thread. Now I’m sure the people doing it don’t realise, they are just so convinced they’re right and everyone else is wrong..

There is a repeated failure to grasp they j it d sad t hace yet another ideology seeking to explain the universe. It’s!’ Being presented as an absolute truth, yet there is lack of agreement even in their own ranks.

Treating previous views with ridicule and demonisation is a tactic as old as civilisation. We’ve seem it happen time aim again every time there’s a new cosmology in town.

Believers measure the truth of competing ideologies only by the rules of their own game. The followers are so tied into their own belief system that they are often blind to what they are doing.

it’s just another turn of the wheel. Another incomplete system claiming to have all the answers.

Sorry for all the typos.

The scientific model is not a “belief system”! It is based on reason, not belief. We can demonstrate its validity. It’s not aggression to question religious ideas. Religions contrive to make it impossible to critically disagree with them without it being seen as rude and aggressive. That’s why there are entire categories like blasphemy designed to put it beyond question.

Science simply does not work in his way. Challenging and questioning is encouraged, because scientists are in the business of discovering what it is true.

Challenging and questioning is encouraged, because scientists are in the business of discovering what it is true.
Indeed. Until something has gone through a process of challenge and question (aka peer review) then it is not accepted into the canon. Even then it's only considered as the latest version of 'true', it is accepted that it may be superseded by better information.

The non-religious get aggressive exasperated because the religious / spiritual / whatever-they-call-themselves can only offer waffle. They assert something with no basis, beyond that of individual experience. Which is fine, we all have personal preferences. But it has no more weight than saying that you belong to a fan club for David Bowie, Terry Pratchett or MUFC.

Science and faith can exist side by side you know!

Science is a particular systematic methodology for observing and seeking to understand the physical world.

Faith is about seeking God. It involves stuff we can't understand through science because it deals with spiritual matters - which are not physical (unless they manifest physically).

So as a person of faith, I observe scientific understanding but view it as not all there is. Science is not the be all and end all for me.

Religious faith and science are in direct conflict. As religion has lost its mandate to science, people now claim their religious beliefs are outside the scientific realm. But it’s not wholly true. Religions DO make claims about the material world - about the existence of deities and about how the Universe came into being.

Religious faith and science can only exist side by side through management of cognitive dissonance.

Faith is about seeking God
But that assumes that there is a god to be found! How can I seek something that doesn't exist?

It seems that faith is just confirmation bias.

Science and faith can exist side by side you know!

I know you keep claiming that and you obviously WANT this to be true in order to justify your belief in mystical gods, but it absolutely cannot be true.

Religion and science both offer explanations for why life and the universe exist. Science relies on testable empirical evidence and observation. Religion relies on subjective belief in a creator. Only one explanation is correct. The other must be discarded. Explanations require evidence. None exists for a creator outside the human mind, whereas the evidence for evolution and the origins of life mounts every day.

For me it would be god appearing on earth to everyone and submitting to a load of tests that the whole planet could observe and this would involve a great deal of creating animals, etc

Then I'd ask him if the religious texts are in any way accurate and if he says yes they are, I'd like him to explain why we should worship a psychopath.

Religious faith and science can only exist side by side through management of cognitive dissonance.

@CaterhamReconstituted, how do you learn or pursue anything new and surprising (beyond your own personal biases) if you cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance? How can you think about things that appear paradoxical if you cannot tolerate dissonance? How can you be a good scientist if you cannot tolerate cognitive dissonance? Since science is ever evolving, it is not complete - so theories cannot be fully reconciled.

So am I the one with confirmation bias if I accept I have to tolerate cognitive dissonance? Confirmation bias is a physiological balm to ease cognitive dissonance surely?

This makes no sense.

@senua ah. Maybe it is time you learnt to sit with your cognitive dissonance for a while. 🙂

Look at some paradoxes. They're always good. 😉