Positive proof?

[Seth]

For one, that's a blind assertion from a self-serving and partisan definition which does not fit the general theistic view that God (the national deity of the ancient Israelites) is a personal being who acts as a participatory agent in the material world. And for two, Huxley knew what he meant.

And Huxley's trumpeting of the Atheist's Fallacy makes his argument valid how, exactly?

... which is not a rational conclusion because a) he bases his presumption on human descriptions of God(s)...

Er, what other kind of description can there be

A true one based in scientific observation and analysis of course...

- and besides, Huxley was reacting to the claims and assertions of the theists of his time and not pulling a description of God out of thin air.

A precise description of the Atheist's Fallacy. Thank you.

... which is the Atheist's Fallacy in a nutshell...

Already debunked.

You've debunked nothing. The Atheist's Fallacy exists because it is simply irrational to draw a conclusion about the existence or non-existence of God based on what theists have to say about it. The logic should be obvious to one of your evident intelligence: If the claims of theists are misguided, inaccurate or just flatly wrong, then drawing a conclusion as to the non-existence (or indeed the existence) of God based upon those claims is completely irrational. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

... and b) because he has no evidence that God(s) are as described by humans.

His point exactly. One cannot secure knowledge of anything claimed as an actual-factual thing (here, a specific type of entity with particular personal attributes who acts as a participatory agent in the natural world) but for which there are no proportionate and relevant (empirical, observable, material, etc) evidences.

No, he's wrong because merely because HE (or you, or indeed all of humanity) is unaware of critically robust scientific evidence proving that God exists does not mean that God does not exist any more than Newton's lack of knowledge about quarks meant that quarks do not exist. One may rationally look at the theist description of God, find no evidence that anything that fits that description exists, but still be wrong about the existence of God because God is neither created by nor constrained by the opinions of theists as to his/her/its nature, character or existence. God can still exist even if theists are completely wrong about his/her/its nature and can still exist even if you, and every other person on the planet, scientist or otherwise, cannot find any critically robust scientific evidence that God exists at this time and stage of human intellect and knowledge.

Therefore God is not necessarily unknowable, merely unknown.

... Because it is possible for God(s) to be both material phenomena not yet detectable or quantifiable by humans......

This is a (necessarily) un-evidenced assertion about the nature of God indistinguishable from a fiction or a falsehood.

And yet it remains a logical and perfectly "scientific" truth, just as the existence of quarks defied Newton's understanding of physics.

You are resorting to the Atheist's Fallacy again by basing your argument on the potentially false premise that God has been even minimally accurately described by theists. Consider the impact on your argument if God is nothing at all like what theists claim. God may therefore exist, in a form that we do not understand and cannot presently detect, examine or quantify. Our inability to perceive, examine and quantify God does not mean that God does not, or indeed cannot exist.

... and for human descriptions of God(s) to be inaccurate...

For one, what kind of description of God can there by other than a 'human'?

The true description of course. You state the very core of the Atheist's Fallacy here by falsely presuming that human descriptions of a thing define the thing. They don't, they merely describe the thing in terms we understand. A "quark" by any other name would be as strange. If God exists as some intelligent entity which intervenes in human existence or indeed the existence and nature of the universe, the fact that humans can see but darkly, as through a glass, and can only interpret what they see through the flawed and unsophisticated filter of their puny intellect does not prove or disprove the existence of God.

And for two, as pointed out, your assertions about the nature of God are (necessarily) dependent on presupposing the existence of God.

The only assertion I make about any sort of god is that it/they may exist entirely independent of and in spite of human perception or understanding.

Now while I accept that you're quite entitled to take that wager yourself, and use it to bolster you argument as you see fit, you will have to do more than simply declaring it 'rational and logical' to do so iff you want to convince others that the possible existence of the national deity of the Israelites is probable enough to make the presupposition a necessary contingent factor in their assessment of, and conclusions about, the claims and assertions of theists.

Strawman. I am most certainly not trying to convince anyone that any particular human interpretation of God exists, Israelite or otherwise.

And besides, what self-declared atheists hasn't arrived at atheism after taking the various claims for the existence of God or gods at face value, for the sake of argument? It's not like we pull the conclusion that there are no controlling supernatural agents out of thin air is it(?)

Yes, it is exactly that. Not "like that," it is precisely that. You pull those conclusions out of thin air and irrational unreason. The most obvious logical failure that "supernatural" is even a valid and rational term. The word "supernatural" itself is an irrationality because it is predicated on the presumption that something which humans believe but do not understand fully can be outside of nature (which violates the basic principle of scientific thought to begin with) and it assumes falsely that a claim, in this case about God, defines the phenomenon as being axiomatically outside of nature. But what if the claim is both true and entirely within nature, and is therefore fully explainable and understandable through the scientific method, but human science is simply not up to the task of doing so at this stage of its evolution? Would you expect Cro-Magnon to understand particle physics? No. How arrogant is it for you to presume that you, or any other human, knows everything about the universe to the extent that anyone can draw a rational conclusion that God does not exist?

P.S. And your statement, by the way, is what proves that Atheists are indeed religious believers in the religion of Atheism. Thanks!

... and because humans can have no "exact knowledge" (according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) "agnosticism" is an irrational conclusion.

Firstly, HUP applies to the quantum realm only and does not even begin to apply here,

And you know that God does not belong to the quantum realm how, exactly?

even if you are going to characterise the claims for a (as yet undefined) knowledge of God as a binary function.

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that if it is impossible to know both the location and velocity of a subatomic particle with absolute accuracy it's also impossible to know the exact and complete nature, character and existence of God, or anything else, and therefore Huxley's mandate for "exact knowledge" is itself a fallacious argument. His claim that God is unknowable because God is not a "material phenomenon" is false because he does not know that God is not a material phenomenon, he assumes this a priori by engaging the Atheist's Fallacy as a premise of his argument. Therefore, because the Atheist's Fallacy is a fallacy, his entire argument about "material phenomena" and God's assumed nature as being immaterial or supernatural, fails completely.

And secondly, you've just shifted the goalposts again, arguing against Huxley's agnosticism on the basis of "exact knowledge", by which I take you mean actual-factual reliable certainty, when he was merely reacting to the unsupported claims for knowledge of theists and saying that as knowing something about something-or-other relies on demonstrating that something-or-other is actually the case then without such demonstration there can be no knowledge - even where it is claimed to exist (that is; knowledge with regards to the nature, scope, abilities, properties, responsibilities, etc, of God).

That's not his claim. His (indirect) claim is that all phenomena are "material phenomena" and therefore explainable by science, which purports to be fully capable of examining anything that is a material phenomenon and rationally describing and quantifying such phenomena using the scientific method. He uses the Atheist's Fallacy to presuppose that God is not a material (natural) phenomenon and then builds a house of cards on that weak foundation to claim that it is impossible to know if God exists because God is a priori not a material phenomenon merely because that is how theist's appear to describe God.

He takes the theist's at their word and accepts as a premise that their understanding and descriptions of God are accurate and authoritative (which is the Atheist's Fallacy in a nutshell) and irrationally concludes that it is impossible to know anything about God because God is putatively not a material phenomenon. But he has absolutely no rational evidence whatsoever upon which to base his conclusion that God is not a material phenomenon. Instead he relies on the irrational evidence of theist belief as his foundation for assuming God is not a natural, material phenomenon. This is an irrational conclusion.

The term agnostic was coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge.

Though I have adequately and truthfully reflected T.H. Huxley's basic position I invite you to read his own words on the matter if you want to argue the toss over what he really meant:

• Huxley on Agnosticism:
• Agnosticism, 1889
• Agnosticism: A rejoiner, 1889
• Agnosticism and Christianity, 1889

As I said, his entire argument is founded on the Atheist's Fallacy, and is therefore itself fallacious.

Nope, I used the word 'position', not agenda - specifically the political position of granting people a right to be left alone to believe anything they want.

Position, agenda, tomato, tomato. My argument at the moment is not about political anything, it's about reason and logic. Any "political" objective is merely a manifestation of the conclusion that the religion of Atheism is no more and no less worthy of respect or legal support or legal suppression than any other religious belief. This is because Atheists consistently insist that only their opinions are rational and therefore should enjoy supremacy over all other religious opinions. They are wrong, and I'm proving it and I'm show exactly how and why.

Nonetheless, it's not like we're unfamiliar with your self-declared agenda in this matter: to teach atheists a lesson in humility, rationality, and logic, to tone-police their expression of disbelief and incredulity about god-claims, and to chide them when and where they fail to meet your personal standards or accept the legitimacy and primacy of your opinion about their atheism.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to stand for reason and logic here, and it sure ain't the Atheists in the group. If Atheist's don't like being handed the shit end of the religion stick, then they shouldn't be quite so arrogant about their own belief system.

You are incorrect. It is my argument that drives a social/political agenda. You are assuming the cart goes before the horse. In this case the horse is Atheist irrationality masquerading as reason and logic, and the cart is the arrogant presumption of intellectual superiority that goes along with that masquerade that drives the Atheist political and social agenda of extirpating religion from the public sphere.

LOL You seemed to have wandered somewhat from the point. Nonetheless, not only do you define 'Atheism' as degenerate for your own purposes,

You're the one who brought up "political positions," not me.

and then define all atheists who don't meet your personal standards into that lamentable grouping simply to justify the stiff treatment you like to dish out,

No, not all atheists, just the Atheists.

but you work very hard (some would suggest too hard) to conflate the secular principle advocated by atheists with atheists seeking to 'extirpate religion from the public sphere' (extinguish, destroy, crush, outlaw, etc) - this is pure hyperbole.

Except it's not, as the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage demonstrates.

Secular atheists propose exactly the same thing as secular theists: that self-declared membership of a voluntary club does not and should not afford club members any particular rights, privileges, or exceptions, or any particular say or sway in public affairs.

And yet large numbers of Atheists insist on exactly that when they presume to tell theists what they may or may not display or do in the public square merely because they find the visible evidence of theistic belief to be offensive to them because it makes them feel "unwelcome" at some public function or other. Lest it be lost on you, there is no right to "feel welcome" or "not feel excluded" anywhere, ever. What you, or anyone else "feels" is not any sort of metric by which the behavior or activities of others, particularly the majority (welcome to democracy!) do or do not do. Here in the US at least the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law...respecting the free exercise of religion..." It does not say "Atheists have a right to not feel excluded." It merely says that the government will not establish a state religion and mandate or control (peaceable) worship by anyone, anywhere. Your right to be an Atheist ends at the next person's belief in God, and they may manifest that belief almost any way they (peaceably) choose, whether you like it or not. If something entering your psyche through thine eye offends thee, then pluck out thine eye and piss off and leave other people alone to do as they please.

And then there's democracy, a favorite crutch of this forum's argumentation. The dictates of democracy demand that the atheistic minority accept the decisions and choices of the theistic majority, just as it demands that the individualistic minority must accept the demands of the socialist majority. It cuts both ways, you see.

If you think that offering your deliberate caricature of atheists who advocate the secular principle as being staunch anti-theists 'Atheists' helps your case, then be my guest

Not that I need your permission, but thanks.

- but it's still a strawman that avoids the issues in favour of justifying cheapshots and personal jibes

How can it be a strawman when it's my argument.

(and no, I'm not saying that all atheists are automatically exempt from any such criticism - just that your exaggerated definition of 'Atheism' is a handy caricature for you to rely on).

Just as "Catlicker," "Chretian" and many other "exaggerated definitions" of theists are, which makes it fair-play turnabout. Sauce, goose, gander. Quitcherbitchen.

If Atheists were logically and rationally correct, then it would be rational to have a political and social agenda of suppressing and eliminating religion from the human psyche. But Atheists are not correct, they are wrong, as I have shown, and therefore their insistence on suppressing religion is also wrong.

As you invented this fallaciously self-serving category 'Atheists' I'll leave your tedious speechifying on 'Atheism' to someone who actually gives a toss.

Or, as King Arthur said in Monty Python, "Run away! Run away!"

The core argument here is reason and logic. If one professes to be basing one's actions and arguments on reason and logic then one should actually be doing so. Atheists are not.

As above.

Ibid.

They are basing their agenda in an irrational antipathy to some particular negative secondary social effects of religious belief while ignoring the larger fact that religion exists for a reason, and that for the most part it makes life better for those who believe.

It is perfectly rational to excoriate those specific instances where religious belief leads to antisocial actions, but it is irrational and bigoted to tar the entirety of the religiously-believing human population with that particular brush.

You suggest, when you say "that religion exists for a reason", that religiosity is socially necessary, at least to those who find it useful, and that it's also reasonable, wise, prudent, and judicious to remove from the surface of society (excoriate) any anti-social aspects of religious belief and/or practice.

I think that the facts of history show that religion is both an evolved behavior and exists because it provides evolutionary benefits that atheism does not. This does not of course mean that all iterations of religious belief are either socially or evolutionarily beneficial, but then again that's how evolution works, isn't it. In the end, the best religion will win.

For one, I hope you are not setting yourself up as the sole arbiter of what particular aspects of any particular religion should or shouldn't be excoriated from the face of society and what forms of expression and action are appropriate in achieving this (such that when atheists call for it they are automatically being irrational, illogical, and unprincipled anti-theists, but when you call for it it's always and only ever reasonable and legitimate)?

Of course not. The moral value of any particular set of religious beliefs and practices is an entirely separate issue for each iteration.

That would be applying a double standard. And for two, and that aside, the principle you outlined simply shits, walks, and quacks like secularism: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

If you see a broad brush being applied it's only because of the broad brush that's consistently applied by Atheists towards other religious beliefs and practices that presumes that Atheism is inherently more rational and logical, and therefore morally superior to all theistic beliefs. As I have shown, it's not, and that's my point. Atheist belief is a religious belief and Atheist practice is a religious practice that is not inherently superior to any other religious belief or practice.

Now that the red herrings have been filleted, if you'd care to address the topic at hand, and along with it my charge, that your requirement of an evidenced dismissal to an un-evidenced claim as being a rational obligation for validating any such dismissal, and that this should form the basis of a normative epistemic practice, is bunkum, then I await your reply in earnest and eager anticipation.

Now THAT is a strawman argument. Once again, it's not about "dismissal" of anything. You may dismiss anything you like as unevidenced, just as anybody else can. But dismissal by you does not provide even a shred of actual critically robust evidence supporting a conclusion that your dismissal equates to the non-existence or falsity of the dismissed claim. It's just your opinion, which like your asshole, everyone has.

[Seth]

What about "there being no evidence that a god of any type exists, I will live on the working assumption that there are no gods, until such evidence is presented"?

Irrational statement. You do not know, and have not shown that there is "no evidence."

Yours is irrational too. There is no proposition for which it can be said, in an "absolute" unrefutable sense that there is no evidence anywhere, anyhow, anytime, etc. That, of course, is not the same as saying there is or even may be evidence.

Indeed. Now apply that logic to your statement above. That's what makes the claim "there being no evidence..." an irrational statement.

For example, the proposition that when good people die, they are rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins and other delights. Often, nonbelievers will say "there is no evidence of 72 virgins!" -- to which, you could respond "since you aren't omniscient, you can't say there is no evidence for it. You can only say that you aren't aware of any."

Which is to say, of course. When I, and many other people, say "there is no evidence," we aren't claiming omniscience. We are suggesting that we haven't been presented any, haven't found any, and haven't seen any.

No, you're making a positive claim that "there is no evidence." If you mean "I'm not aware of any evidence" then that's what you need to say, and the rest of your argumentation on the subject needs to be predicated upon and consistent with this statement of uncertainty. Usually Atheist arguments are premised with "there is no evidence" followed by reams of "reasoning" about theistic claims based upon that initial fallacy that supposedly confirm the conclusion that God does not exist. I find that irrational and annoying, so I point it out by saying that you cannot draw a rational conclusion based on irrational premises.

Remember the concept of falsifiability. what that assumes or presumes is lack of omniscience. We can't know everything. We aren't privy to everything in the universe. But, we still draw conclusions about what does and does not exist every day, based on the information that we have.

And many of those conclusions are utterly irrational and based on your pervasive ignorance of the true nature of the universe. I choose to point out such irrationalities from time to time, particularly when the subsequent irrational arguments and conclusions malign and slander entire classes of people who have mostly done nothing at all worth of such arrogant excoriation. If your premises and arguments are rationally and logically sound, then I don't object to a rational conclusion drawn therefrom, but I require precision in thought and expression and you lot here (and elsewhere) are notoriously sloppy and irrational thinkers. And that's a great pity. Do try to learn something and be less of a nitwit when you argue.

So, let's pull back from the semantics, and understand meaning.

Let's not. Let's use reason and logic and construct strong, logical and rational arguments and draw proper, supportable conclusions. That's what science demands.

It's not that anyone has irrefutable evidence that gods don't exist == it's that the known (to a given individual) evidence does not support the assertion that a god or gods exist.

Exactly. So say that and reason and argue with that simple fact in mind.

It is always possible that evidence will arise later to prove the god-hypothesis -- that's in the nature of science.

Yup. Even the Dawkster figured that out. Why can't you all?

What we know today will be supplemented in the future, and may change how we think of the universe.

God, I hope so, because we are abysmally ignorant at this point.

That being the case, it's no reason to believe in a god or gods.

I never said it was. Then again, I never said it wasn't.

[JimC]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Exactly. Almost as silly as "Some atheists, drink gin, therefore all atheists drink gin"...

(well, of course, they should, but that's another story...)

[rainbow]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Exactly. Almost as silly as "Some atheists, drink gin, therefore all atheists drink gin"...

(well, of course, they should, but that's another story...)

Some religious people indoctrinate their children, therefore all religious people do?

Thanks for making my point for me.

[pErvinalia]

We're talking about religious institutions. But you already know that. Do keep trolling.

[rainbow]

Who in their right mind would gamble on forgiveness, if they really believed in heaven and hell?

You'd have to ask someone who believes in heaven and hell.

Fallen into my trap. I said who ''in their right mind'' .

So clever of you.

[rainbow]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Atheists don't exist, so the point is moot.

[Forty Two]

Sure, bro. Strange that your every response denying that you are Coito is EXACTLY how those of us who know you, I mean him, would expect you, I mean him, to respond.

you have me at a disadvantage, and I'm a bit creeped out by you -- but....

[Forty Two]

What about "there being no evidence that a god of any type exists, I will live on the working assumption that there are no gods, until such evidence is presented"?

Irrational statement. You do not know, and have not shown that there is "no evidence."

Yours is irrational too. There is no proposition for which it can be said, in an "absolute" unrefutable sense that there is no evidence anywhere, anyhow, anytime, etc. That, of course, is not the same as saying there is or even may be evidence.

Indeed. Now apply that logic to your statement above. That's what makes the claim "there being no evidence..." an irrational statement.

I didn't say it. JimC did. For me, I don't believe in gods because no god-proponent has provided me with any convincing evidence that their proposed god exists. The fact that someone can come up with description of an alleged god which cannot be falsified is not a reason to seriously consider it as a proposition. Quite the opposite, actually.

For example, the proposition that when good people die, they are rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins and other delights. Often, nonbelievers will say "there is no evidence of 72 virgins!" -- to which, you could respond "since you aren't omniscient, you can't say there is no evidence for it. You can only say that you aren't aware of any."

Which is to say, of course. When I, and many other people, say "there is no evidence," we aren't claiming omniscience. We are suggesting that we haven't been presented any, haven't found any, and haven't seen any.

No, you're making a positive claim that "there is no evidence." If you mean "I'm not aware of any evidence" then that's what you need to say,

Human beings speak in conventional English, and I'm telling you what is often meant by the phrase.

and the rest of your argumentation on the subject needs to be predicated upon and consistent with this statement of uncertainty. Usually Atheist arguments are premised with "there is no evidence" followed by reams of "reasoning" about theistic claims based upon that initial fallacy that supposedly confirm the conclusion that God does not exist. I find that irrational and annoying, so I point it out by saying that you cannot draw a rational conclusion based on irrational premises.

Fair enough, which is why I generally don't say "there is no evidence" -- unless I qualify it with "of which I am aware," and then I usually ask the god-proponent to let me in on any evidence they may have. They have never failed to fail in that regard.

Remember the concept of falsifiability. what that assumes or presumes is lack of omniscience. We can't know everything. We aren't privy to everything in the universe. But, we still draw conclusions about what does and does not exist every day, based on the information that we have.

And many of those conclusions are utterly irrational and based on your pervasive ignorance of the true nature of the universe.

Which conclusions?

I choose to point out such irrationalities from time to time, particularly when the subsequent irrational arguments and conclusions malign and slander entire classes of people who have mostly done nothing at all worth of such arrogant excoriation.

What maligning or slander? Saying "I don't believe in gods" or "the evidence available to me points to a godless universe" is not slandering anyone.

If your premises and arguments are rationally and logically sound, then I don't object to a rational conclusion drawn therefrom, but I require precision in thought and expression and you lot here (and elsewhere) are notoriously sloppy and irrational thinkers. And that's a great pity. Do try to learn something and be less of a nitwit when you argue.

Are you sure you're referring to me? How have I been a nitwit? It seems to me that you've confused me with someone else (e.g. JimC above). The fact that you can't seem to keep straight in your head who said what, and that you are simply accusing me of having said things I did not say -- that's fairly sloppy on your part. And, fuck you.

So, let's pull back from the semantics, and understand meaning.

Let's not. Let's use reason and logic and construct strong, logical and rational arguments and draw proper, supportable conclusions. That's what science demands.

And, you'll be so kind as to point out where I haven't done so. Don't point to someone else's posts.

It's not that anyone has irrefutable evidence that gods don't exist == it's that the known (to a given individual) evidence does not support the assertion that a god or gods exist.

Exactly. So say that and reason and argue with that simple fact in mind.

I have, several times on this thread, and yet you have repeatedly claimed otherwise, nitwit.

It is always possible that evidence will arise later to prove the god-hypothesis -- that's in the nature of science.

Yup. Even the Dawkster figured that out. Why can't you all?

.

You're talking to me, and you just said "Yup" - so, am I not a person who has, in fact, "figured that out?" The fact that some evidence somewhere might later arise to prove any hypothesis is no reason to believe (or even take seriously) the hypothesis.

What we know today will be supplemented in the future, and may change how we think of the universe.

God, I hope so, because we are abysmally ignorant at this point.

I just hope so, no appeal to a deity is necessary.

That being the case, it's no reason to believe in a god or gods.

I never said it was. Then again, I never said it wasn't.

It isn't, because it would be irrational to believe without reason -- by definition. Belief without reason is irrational.

[Seth]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Exactly. Almost as silly as "Some atheists, drink gin, therefore all atheists drink gin"...

(well, of course, they should, but that's another story...)

Which is just as stupid as "some theists are bad, therefore all theists are bad."

[Seth]

We're talking about religious institutions. But you already know that. Do keep trolling.

No, YOU are trying to limit the discussion to "religious institutions," whatever that means. "We" are talking about the existence or non existence of God.

[Seth]

I didn't say it. JimC did. For me, I don't believe in gods because no god-proponent has provided me with any convincing evidence that their proposed god exists. The fact that someone can come up with description of an alleged god which cannot be falsified is not a reason to seriously consider it as a proposition. Quite the opposite, actually.

Sorry if there was an attribution error. Anyway, I've never said that such propositions are rational. All I've been saying is that absent some critically robust scientific evidence that the alleged god does not exist, one cannot rationally state that the alleged god does not exist. In other words, it is irrational to presume that absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence.

Human beings speak in conventional English, and I'm telling you what is often meant by the phrase.

Human beings speak in all sorts of languages, not just English, and quite often they speak irrationally and incorrectly. I hold myself and others here to a higher standard than the lumpen proletarian masses, given that this is supposed to be a "rational" forum.

Fair enough, which is why I generally don't say "there is no evidence" -- unless I qualify it with "of which I am aware," and then I usually ask the god-proponent to let me in on any evidence they may have. They have never failed to fail in that regard.

Or, you have simply rejected the evidence they present as a priori false because it does not appear to meet your standards of evidence and you refuse to examine it at all. But when you add the qualification you are turning an irrational claim into a rational statement of truth. Very few Atheists do this.

Remember the concept of falsifiability. what that assumes or presumes is lack of omniscience. We can't know everything. We aren't privy to everything in the universe. But, we still draw conclusions about what does and does not exist every day, based on the information that we have.

And many of those conclusions are utterly irrational and based on your pervasive ignorance of the true nature of the universe.

Which conclusions?

Conclusions about the true nature of the universe of course.

What maligning or slander? Saying "I don't believe in gods" or "the evidence available to me points to a godless universe" is not slandering anyone.

I'm not indicating you personally, I'm commenting on Atheists in general and their penchant for saying the most offensive and disgusting things about people they don't know merely because they profess a particular faith.

If your premises and arguments are rationally and logically sound, then I don't object to a rational conclusion drawn therefrom, but I require precision in thought and expression and you lot here (and elsewhere) are notoriously sloppy and irrational thinkers. And that's a great pity. Do try to learn something and be less of a nitwit when you argue.

Are you sure you're referring to me? How have I been a nitwit? It seems to me that you've confused me with someone else (e.g. JimC above).

That's very possible. If it is, I apologize. If it's not, if the shoe fits, wear it.

The fact that you can't seem to keep straight in your head who said what, and that you are simply accusing me of having said things I did not say -- that's fairly sloppy on your part. And, fuck you.

Again, I apologize for any attribution error. It does get difficult sometimes to keep track. Again, if what I say doesn't apply to you, then please feel free to ignore it as applied to you.

It isn't, because it would be irrational to believe without reason -- by definition. Belief without reason is irrational.

Indeed. Thus, belief in the proposition that God does not exist by virtue of the claim that no evidence of God's existence is known to the claimant is without reason and is irrational.

[Brian Peacock]

We're talking about religious institutions. But you already know that. Do keep trolling.

No, YOU are trying to limit the discussion to "religious institutions," whatever that means. "We" are talking about the existence or non existence of God.

Rainbow responded to the charge that religious belief are systematically indoctrinated in children (while atheists generally don't indoctrinate) with...

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children

... which is a sarcastic retort which implies equivalence, and was a response to mistermack, who opined...

And what atheists very rarely do, is intensively indoctrinate children in their beliefs.
They don't hold non-bible classes, or make them learn atheist books word for word.

Examples of some regimes who have systematically enforced an anti-religious doctrine of their own does not mean that mistermacks general point cannot or should not be taken at face value, or that it is reasonable to imply equivalences between most atheists not holding non-bible classes, or not making their children learn atheists books word-for-word and totalitarian communist regimes.

That parents generally pass on their values to their children, or at least try to (if and when they are bothered, of course), is not in dispute, but there is a distinction to be made between passing on values to one's children and engaging in the systematic indoctrination of credulous children at the behest of over-arching institutional bodies who define and authorises the 'proper' and 'necessary' compliment of values according to their perceived or declared obligations to their particular deity.

So no, we were talking about religious institutions, whether you know what that means or not.

[JimC]

It is good to know that Atheist regimes like the former Soviet Union, China, and their allies never indoctrinated their children.

I never knew that.

LOL. That's an old one: some atheists are bad, therefore all atheists are bad.

Exactly. Almost as silly as "Some atheists, drink gin, therefore all atheists drink gin"...

(well, of course, they should, but that's another story...)

Which is just as stupid as "some theists are bad, therefore all theists are bad."

Show me where on the forum any atheist has alleged that. Even when talking about a very nasty religion indeed, with an active, murderous small minority (Islam), most of us would support the contention that a large majority of muslims are just ordinary folk, who do not wish harm on others. Even if one thinks or says that their belief system is deluded, it is not saying that they are bad people.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Couple of points about your arguments.

1. What you call the atheist's fallacy.
I agree that demonstrating a lack of credible evidence for a particular model of deity does not prove there is no deity, perhaps conforming to a different model. But I doubt that anyone here actually is saying that. We all look at specific models of deity, and have fun debunking them. That does not mean we generalise to all models.

2. Proving a negative.
Refer to my opening post on this thread. It is generally not possible to prove a negative argument. Thus it is not possible to prove there is no deity, with the word deity covering all possible models.

This is a real problem in science, where many ideas are negative (there is no such thing as phlogistan, for example). The approach in science is to carry out lots and lots of tests and to follow the logic that the more tests for the idea that are falsified make the idea less and less likely. Never impossible, just very, very unlikely.

I have been looking for 50 odd years for evidence of deity, and that evidence is lacking. This does not prove the negative, of course, but it makes the idea of a deity that influences humans very, very improbable.