Atheism is not technically a belief system, but functionally it is.

That's like saying bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby. With all the things that I'm sure you don't do, you must not have a lot of free time with all your hobbies.

And the differences between atheists are just as prevalent in Christianity. The different denominations have just as diverse world views tied by a few common facts. God as the creator, Jesus as the savior...that's about it.

There are clearly "denominations" of atheism as well (Humanists as a distinct group, etc.)And not all Christians go to church either.

No, we have no realy argument because the athiests premise is that nothing can exist without empirical evidence and I have made the proposition that divinity could be purely metaphysical and not bound by the pertinacious reasoning of physical science. Give or take the linguistics.

Depending on the individual, atheists presumably would not have "religious" beliefs. That would make them agnostic or theist. Some may hold a concept of spirituality, but any idea of religion would make them theists.
I read them at the outset of this thread and find them more in the attitude of disproving specificaly the Christian god than that of theism.
Well then of course these could be challenged by athiests. If a theist claims their god or gods made a loaf of bread appear before them and they fed a multitude of f people with it, more than common sense would denote, then scientist would surely need to examine that loaf. But if a group of theists dance around a fire and chant mantras to thier diety/s and request that they live long and prosper and they do, or even if they request something specific, such as the end of a famine or a divergence from a destructive weather pattern and this happens, then how does science disprove that the origin of thier prosperity is not divinely ordained, if the theists believe it to be. For that matter, why should they?
Like, "We did a rain dance and requested the Great Spirit send us rain, and it rained." Was it the Great Spirit, or just great timing?
As I've stated before I have no bounderies. Both great studies. But studies they are indeed. Something to be injested, digested and rejected. I read everything discerningly including both religious text and scientific text as both have been proven to be fallacious at times.

Although I would be humbled to be catagorized in the same ilk as Plato and Aristotle, I think you are more relating my argument to Christian apologetics, which makes a erronious presumption as to my religious beliefs.

They are if they emphaticaly demand empirical evidence for teh existance of everything. Again the crux.

No, i'm only debating opposite points, I've made no claims. And again, how can science apply empirical evidence to metaphysics?

I never said that. But science does have many deficiencies and of course scientists are the first to admit it.

I've read your posts with interest and have very much enjoyed them, but as you yourself pointed out earlier on, you aren't likely to "convince" someone like OMGFwho is dead set on not believing.

On the contrary, I'd be willing to believe a god exists if someone could present some actual, you know, evidence. This is something you've admitted you don't have. Until then, I maintain that it is irrational to believe in any god, and doubly so to believe in any particular god. I'll note now that you have never answered my questions regarding this, instead preferring to take pot-shots at me. Why is that? Why can you not answer simple questions?

To strong atheists, who have no accepted concept of divinity, no argument refering to any sort of divinity would be reasonable.

What is so special about this "concept of divinity" that makes it so strong-atheists don't have it? The premise behind your entire argument is that we do not have a concept to argue for or against, and thus we have no real argument. Contrarily, atheists can and do use the very aspects of God that theists use to support their idea and their religious beliefs. Look at any formal disproof of a particular conception of God, and you will see that the definition of God is outlined at the outset.

The concept of divinity, theism, has yet to be proven false or non-existant by popular and accepted modern science.

I recommend Ebon Musings; for "burden of proof" specifically The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists and Naturalism in Science. When the implications of religious beliefs entail supposed facts that contradict real facts, then those beliefs are false. And even for arbitrary religious beliefs with silly, but neutral, practical implications we have to ask: "Why?" If one does not try hard to go by the best explanations of the world, then one is misguided, ignorant, or at worst dishonest, and we have every right to publicly and loudly speak out against this.

For disproving gods, as I never tire of quoting here on this site - Mark Vuletic's article Is Atheism Logical? concludes:

1. One can prove with certainty that an entity does not exist if (a) the concept of that entity is incoherent, or (b) the existence of that entity is logically incompatible with obviously present states of affairs.

2. One can be rationally justified in claiming that an entity does not exist without being certain that it does not exist. This justification comes from (a) the improbability that that entity exists given various states of affairs, and/or (b) the principle of parsimony coupled with a lack of evidence for the existence of that entity.

And for your minor points, Wrestler:

If atheists do not want theists to beleive in theism, they have the burdan of proof to disprove theisms.

There is a burden of proof on the "complainer": the burden to prove a belief is irrational (given facts and reason) and detrimental is all that is necessary. When large masses of people dwelve into a world of mindless rituals and falsehoods, we have every right to talk to those masses about it. Both rationality and irrationality are inevitably relevant to more than just single people. Religion is relevant to all; it is relevant to society at large.

alternative conclusions to the gaps science has yet to fill in its fundamentals

(Ignoring the semantic contradiction...) The "alternative conclusions" either need to go by less assumptions than naturalistic explanations, or do a better job of explaining the natural world than these explanations, of which superstitious explanations almost invariably do neither, and to an alarmingly irresponsible degree at that.

Dawkins is requesting that premisses of a metaphysical nature be verified with empirical evidence.

I think you're missing an important part of the social and political context in which Dawkins makes his argument. As I read it, he's not demanding proof that immaterial entities exist, he's insisting that people who argue for the existence of gods and the supernatural stop making empirical claims.

This is the problem for the metaphysician, who can argue forever in favor of logical possibilities. But believers make specific claims about the qualities of their supernatural entities and they inevitably make those claims within empirical frames of reference. For example, Dawkins' metaphor of the "crane vs. skyhook" is specifically intended to address claims that the supernatural interacts with the natural. That is an empirical claim and you can't back away from it or its implications: advancing a "skyhook" as a possibility is useless to the investigation of observable reality.

I would think being dismissive would be cognitively construed as more arrogant than offering alternative conclusions to the gaps science has yet to fill in its fundamentals.

Appealing to the false authority of metaphysics and philosophy does not bootstrap the plausibility of the supernatural.

It makes me wonder if you apologists ever read any philosophy more recent than the 19th century. As I've said elsewhere, things such as "truth" and "what does it mean to say something 'exists'?" are emphatically not settled questions.

How would an athiest know how anything metaphysical much less divinity interacts with the physical world since they do not have a concept of it? The idea of any thing that is not physicaly evident is refuted by athiests.

How do you verify if anything metaphysical, much less divinity does interact with the physical world? You can't ever know if you're right or wrong about that if you presume that failure to detect this interaction is a failing of modern science.

If you're interested in something more than patrolling your territorial boundaries, I recommend A.F. Chalmers' "What is this thing called science?" and David Deutsch's "Fabric of Reality". Like most apologists, you're arguing against a 19th Century stereotype of naieve empiricism.

The empiricist isn't the one being close-minded here. You are shutting out any possibility of investigating your own claims, and then demanding that you be allowed to make empirical assertions about your metaphysical entities without ever having to subject them to empirical verification. Not hard to understand, really. It's worked for you for 2,000 years and now it's the only strategy you have left.

As for the "gaps" in scientific knowledge and explanation---that's a feature not a bug. Science does not work towards "proof". The modern collection of scientific inquiry aims at "inference to the best explanation". Saying that modern science's inability to "disprove" the existence of God means that science is somehow deficient just shows that you don't understand the point of the scientific enterprise.

But I must say even with the inter woven fail safe methods and procedures for refuting, reassessin and reafirming scienctific theory and fact, scientist bicker and fuss with each other over these theories and facts to much greater degree than theists.

And yet, in the end they come to consensus as the hypotheses are tested with actual, empirical experiments. What does religion do? They form schisms and then snipe at each other or go to war with each other, never having a way to actually test and resolve any differences. I'll take science any day.

I would think being dismissive would be cognitively construed as more arrogant than offering alternative conclusions to the gaps science has yet to fill in its fundamentals.

Pointing out gaps in our scientific knowledge does you no favors in your argument.

How would an athiest know how anything metaphysical much less divinity interacts with the physical world since they do not have a concept of it? The idea of any thing that is not physicaly evident is refuted by athiests.

Once again, stop spewing straw all over the place. Also, it is up to you to show us all how to evidence the metaphysical. That said, we have a book that claims that the universe was created in six days. We know that is not how it happened. Appealing to obfuscation will not change that fact.

The event of the "Big Bang" has been substanciated. How it relates to the creation of life, much less life on earth or human beings is still up for speculation. Or should be to the any one with a critical mind. As you have stated there are very few definates in science and every theory or fact is up for scrutiny.

And yet, we also have substantial evidence about how galaxies and stars formed, how elements formed, how the Earth formed, when the Earth formed, how old the universe is, evolution, etc. To brush all that aside and claim that things are "still up for speculation" is wrong-headed and much more arrogant than any straw atheist that you've so far conjured up.

As I've stated, strong atheist will not entertain any concept of metaphysics as per the definition, and the remainder of your response.

OK, so you've defined your terms. You'll note that just about zero people on this site are actually strong atheists. Oh, and don't forget to answer the rest of what you quoted, or were you going to dodge that?

But this is the stance of strong athiests.

No it is not, not even under the definition you supplied.

The soul is an accepted concept that can not be substanciated by physical evidence, but it surely exists?

It might exist, but we have no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence we do have speaks against it. I suggest you check out Ebon's "Ghost in the Machine" essay on his ebonmusings site.

Dawkins issued a challenge for theists to prove certain premisses of popular theism with empirical evidence.

I don't remember him stating that it had to be specifically empirical evidence, but he's right to demand evidence from theists. Once again, theists put forth the idea of a god, so it is up to them to provide evidence for this god. Ducking the burden of proof gets you nowhere.

I would think being dismissive would be cognitively construed as more arrogant than offering alternative conclusions to the gaps science has yet to fill in its fundamentals.

omgf WROTE "Maybe not all, but some certainly so. Take the Genesis account of the formation of the universe. This can and has been tested and has been found to be untrue."

reply

How would an athiest know how anything metaphysical much less divinity interacts with the physical world since they do not have a concept of it? The idea of any thing that is not physicaly evident is refuted by athiests.

The event of the "Big Bang" has been substanciated. How it relates to the creation of life, much less life on earth or human beings is still up for speculation. Or should be to the any one with a critical mind. As you have stated there are very few definates in science and every theory or fact is up for scrutiny.

OMGF wrote " Thanks for telling us all what "strong atheists" (and who knows how you define that) will and won't accept. The fact remains that I know of no way to provide non-empirical evidence (maybe logical proof applies depending on your definition). I will accept evidence if you can present it."

reply

From Wiki

"Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods. Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others."

As I've stated, strong atheist will not entertain any concept of metaphysics as per the definition, and the remainder of your response.

OMGF wrote

"It's a good thing, then, that no one here seems to be saying this."

reply

But this is the stance of strong athiests. Again this point could turn into an Argument from Ignorance. The soul is an accepted concept that can not be substanciated by physical evidence, but it surely exists?

Here is how I link it all together for the purpose of discussion in this thread.....

Dawkins issued a challenge for theists to prove certain premisses of popular theism with empirical evidence.

Theism is the belief in god and/or gods ro religion.

Theology is the study of god/gods/religions and a myriad of religions topics, including the philosophy of religion.

Philosophy of Religion is a branch of philosophy concerned with the existance of god/gods amoungst other things.

Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the study of the principles of reality that transcend those of particular science.

Explain to me how to provide physical evidence of metaphysical concepts.

That's not up to me. If you wish to contend that the metaphysical exists, it is up to you to provide evidence. Of course, I know of no method to test for anything that is not physical.

I'm not so sure that all concepts of divinity interact in the physical world as a physical entities. Again, the premisses of metaphysics apply

Maybe not all, but some certainly so. Take the Genesis account of the formation of the universe. This can and has been tested and has been found to be untrue.

Again, applying empirical evidence to metaphysics is a lofty endevour.

Which is why I suggested that you should supply some "non-empirical" evidence!

Also again, strong atheists would do not entertain discussion that is not of an empirical nature which makes conclusions nearly imposible.

Thanks for telling us all what "strong atheists" (and who knows how you define that) will and won't accept. The fact remains that I know of no way to provide non-empirical evidence (maybe logical proof applies depending on your definition). I will accept evidence if you can present it.

But to hold the positon that nothing exists with out physical and empirical evidence is a fallacy.

It's a good thing, then, that no one here seems to be saying this.

But the gaps are still there no matter the "filler" invoked. I think the difference lies in perception.

Whether the gaps are there or not makes little difference. You can't simply fill in the gaps with your preferred, unevidenced "explanation" and say that you haven't committed a logical fallacy.

...religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life.

I dispute this. Science is much more closely tied to ordinary experience than religion ever will be. Religion is nothing more than making stuff up without evidentiary basis. Further, claiming that religion focuses on the way the world ought to be is also clearly wrong, unless you are claiming that the world ought to have a bloodthirsty, jealous, and tyrannical god at the helm.

Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully.

Only when religion is willing to stay out of the physical world and out of science's way, and also willing to bend to the results of science. This is antithetical, however, to religion for the most part. Take Xianity for example. Genesis says very specific things about the formation of the universe, things that are false. For one to claim that science is correct and the Bible wrong is to claim that god himself is wrong or that god lied, etc. This is against Xian principles. Only by applying double standards to the tenets of Xianity can one really find peaceful co-existence instead of cognitive dissonance.

Then we agree on the probability going either way.

That depends on what you mean by that. Do I think it is equally probable either way? No. In fact, I would put the probability that god exists as vanishingly small. I'm not ruling it out completely, but I'm not going to factor it into anything either, because it is most probably not so.

Niether one is a theology or even a philosophy that attmepts to decipher reality as a theology and philosophy does and they are not theistic in nature.

Nice evasion. It doesn't matter whether I claim that it's a theology or not. You still can't disprove it even though you claim that you can. If you are hung up on making sure it's a religious claim, disprove Allah.

Both are easily refutable by modern scientific standards. Need I indulge?

Yes. What scientific standards will you use? The teapot is invisible, so you can't see it. The teapot is incorporeal, so you can't hit it or paint it or anything like that. So, what standards shall you use?

Ad hominem, I'm not complaining at all.

Not ad hominem, since I never stated that you complaining invalidated your argument. You still have to deal with the apparent contradiction.

Metaphysics is a science...

Really? How do you apply the scientific method to it?

Therefore the burdan of proof lies on the complainer. If atheists do not want theists to beleive in theism, they have the burdan of proof to disprove theisms.

This is completely bass ackwards. The burden of proof lies on the one making the positive claim. When you claim that god exists, it is incumbent upon you to back up that claim. It is not incumbent upon me to prove that you are wrong. Let's look at a real world example, shall we? If police come to your door and arrest you for something, do you think it is up to you to prove that they are wrong, or do you feel you are innocent until they can prove you are guilty? Besides, how does one prove a negative?

Rationality would be relevent to the idividual.

I do so love it when theists (presumably Xians) argue for relative truth. No, sorry, but the belief in god is irrational no matter who does it, for the simply fact that it is based on logical fallacy.