Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[SadisticNature]

Scientists often believe in unproven conjectures. They have arguments and intuitions and posit theories. These theories are eventually tested. For instance Newton believed that without air resistance any two objects would fall at the same speed. This wasn't tested until well after his death, he had some evidence for it, and some evidence against it, but was able to pick a side without having conclusive evidence. All of theoretical physics is done by reasoned conjectures. The theory of relativity involves objects at speeds we are no where close to producing so can't be experimentally verified for large scales. Yet we still have conjectures, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. Dawkins has even pointed to an example in Biology where the two conjectures were polar opposites, and reasonable scientists held both positions until further evidence ended the debate.

If you present the world with a widespread correct proof that god does not exist you would reduce religions down to a few radical fanatics, determined to deny the truth. In the absence of further evidence however, I contend that both positions are reasonable.

[SadisticNature]

If you prefer replace gravity by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the point remains the same.

As for convincing people in either direction. If you want people to abandon a belief in A you have to show them good reasons for not A, in some cases an outright proof. If you want people to abandon a belief in not A you have to show them good reasons for A, in some cases an outright proof.

My point isn't that you should believe in god. My point is you can't argue its irrational to believe in a conjecture (God) unless you have strong evidence of its falsity, which by many peoples standards you do not.

[Thorne]

My point isn't that you should believe in god. My point is you can't argue its irrational to believe in a conjecture (God) unless you have strong evidence of its falsity, which by many peoples standards you do not.

And my point is that there is ample evidence for the falsity of gods, enough to satisy me and many others, while there is no evidence for the existence of those gods.

And some people, the very religious, would not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever. Even if I could prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist, those people would deny the proofs, call it Satan's work and, if they had their way, hang me from the nearest tree. The depth of their faith is not a testament to the truth of their beliefs, only to their own ignorance.

[DuncanONeil]

And my point is that there is ample evidence for the falsity of gods, enough to satisy me and many others, while there is no evidence for the existence of those gods.

Clearly that ample evidence is moderated by the fact that it is sufficient for you. But that places you in a very exhalted position of having been able to prove the negative! Your ample evidence of the "falsity of gods" is precisely as ample as the evidence proving the truth of gods. Although most people really only accept the premise that there is only one God.

And some people, the very religious, would not be swayed by any evidence whatsoever. Even if I could prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that God does not exist, those people would deny the proofs, call it Satan's work and, if they had their way, hang me from the nearest tree. The depth of their faith is not a testament to the truth of their beliefs, only to their own ignorance.

Your comments here expose a serious bias in your beliefs. Again you propose proving that something is not. On what kind of basis can you ever hope to accomplish such a feat? It is an axiom that we are incapable of proving a clear negative.

[Thorne]

Clearly that ample evidence is moderated by the fact that it is sufficient for you. But that places you in a very exhalted position of having been able to prove the negative! Your ample evidence of the "falsity of gods" is precisely as ample as the evidence proving the truth of gods. Although most people really only accept the premise that there is only one God.

To clarify this, the evidence which is sufficient for me is thousands of years of lack of evidence for gods. Evidence of the falsity of gods is contradictions and outright fabrications in the testaments for those gods. But these are the gods which have been defined by religions, not the possibility of unknown gods.

Your comments here expose a serious bias in your beliefs. Again you propose proving that something is not. On what kind of basis can you ever hope to accomplish such a feat? It is an axiom that we are incapable of proving a clear negative.

No, I said IF I could prove the negative, not that I could. My point is that some people would not believe ANY amount of evidence which contradicts their preconceived notions. 9/11 "truthers" discard all engineering and scientific evidence and insist that 9/11 was a government plot; "Birthers" deny all evidence and insist that Obama was born in Africa. "Creationsists" deny all geological evidence and declare the world to be 6000 years old. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway these whack-jobs. And god believers are no less intransigent.

[DuncanONeil]

You mean like the folks that dismiss all contrary evidence of an impending global man made disaster that is variously going to; drown us, starve us, or subject us to harmful weather?

The groups you cite are each an exceedingly small minority.

Oh yes then there are the liberals that and their refusal to deal with truth, against their ideas or people and for their opponents ideas or people.

No, I said IF I could prove the negative, not that I could. My point is that some people would not believe ANY amount of evidence which contradicts their preconceived notions. 9/11 "truthers" discard all engineering and scientific evidence and insist that 9/11 was a government plot; "Birthers" deny all evidence and insist that Obama was born in Africa. "Creationsists" deny all geological evidence and declare the world to be 6000 years old. No amount of evidence to the contrary will sway these whack-jobs. And god believers are no less intransigent.

[Thorne]

You mean like the folks that dismiss all contrary evidence of an impending global man made disaster that is variously going to; drown us, starve us, or subject us to harmful weather?

The groups you cite are each an exceedingly small minority.

Oh yes then there are the liberals that and their refusal to deal with truth, against their ideas or people and for their opponents ideas or people.

Yes, there are fanatics on both sides of these arguments. There are those who will scream bloody murder about global warming even IF evidence were to show them wrong, and there are just as fanatical denialists who will deny global warming, even IF the evidence proves them wrong.
And let's not leave out the conservatives who will fight doing what's right for people just because it's not what they believe. There are idiots on both sides of every issue.

[Thorne]

Scientists often believe in unproven conjectures. They have arguments and intuitions and posit theories. These theories are eventually tested.

"Tested" is the key word, here. Anyone can believe anything they like. But can you test your hypotheses?

For instance Newton believed that without air resistance any two objects would fall at the same speed. This wasn't tested until well after his death, he had some evidence for it, and some evidence against it, but was able to pick a side without having conclusive evidence.

Here, too, it was a subject which could be tested. Even if the technology for accurate testing wasn't yet available, a test of the problem could be conceived, and executed. To my knowledge, there are no valid tests for the presence, or absence, of gods. Any tests which have tried to demonstrate the existence of supernatural forces have all failed. You can pick whichever side you want, but when test after test shows that these forces do not exist, and no tests show that they do, then sooner or later you have to admit that you might be wrong.

All of theoretical physics is done by reasoned conjectures. The theory of relativity involves objects at speeds we are no where close to producing so can't be experimentally verified for large scales.

Read this to see one way that relativity was confirmed.

If you present the world with a widespread correct proof that god does not exist you would reduce religions down to a few radical fanatics, determined to deny the truth. In the absence of further evidence however, I contend that both positions are reasonable.

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. One of the reasons for the demise of the ancient gods, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc., is that science showed that the effects which people had ascribed to them (thunder, lightning, wind, storms) were natural effects, following natural laws. Any objective reading of the Bible will show that God, as defined in the Bible, cannot exist. There are just too many internal contradictions, as well as discrepancies with observed nature. So, while it can be reasonable to say that there are no gods because we can find no evidence for them, it is not as reasonable to say that, despite a lack of evidence, there must be gods.

[DuncanONeil]

The key word is actually "eventually"!

"Tested" is the key word, here. Anyone can believe anything they like. But can you test your hypotheses?

Here, too, it was a subject which could be tested. Even if the technology for accurate testing wasn't yet available, a test of the problem could be conceived, and executed. To my knowledge, there are no valid tests for the presence, or absence, of gods. Any tests which have tried to demonstrate the existence of supernatural forces have all failed. You can pick whichever side you want, but when test after test shows that these forces do not exist, and no tests show that they do, then sooner or later you have to admit that you might be wrong.

Read this to see one way that relativity was confirmed.

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. One of the reasons for the demise of the ancient gods, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc., is that science showed that the effects which people had ascribed to them (thunder, lightning, wind, storms) were natural effects, following natural laws. Any objective reading of the Bible will show that God, as defined in the Bible, cannot exist. There are just too many internal contradictions, as well as discrepancies with observed nature. So, while it can be reasonable to say that there are no gods because we can find no evidence for them, it is not as reasonable to say that, despite a lack of evidence, there must be gods.

[DuncanONeil]

While we cannot prove that gods do not exist, it can be shown that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist.

Interesting that you say that God can not be proven to not exist but it is impossible for Gods to exist? Strange would you not say?

[Thorne]

Interesting that you say that God can not be proven to not exist but it is impossible for Gods to exist? Strange would you not say?

I said that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. And gods of any kind, which are defined as supernatural beings, cannot be proven to exist or to not exist. It's impossible to prove a negative. One can only infer a negative from a lack of evidence for the positive.

[DuncanONeil]

No matter how you spin that you stated clearly that god may exist and that god can not exist.

I said that the gods as defined by religions cannot exist. And gods of any kind, which are defined as supernatural beings, cannot be proven to exist or to not exist. It's impossible to prove a negative. One can only infer a negative from a lack of evidence for the positive.