@PathwayMachine 1. It varies depending on the various forms of atheism. It goes from simply honoring the basic principle of onus probandi, i.e. remaining in the initial position of not believing something exists until those who claim it exists bring strong evidence in support of their claim (which is pretty much where personally I'm at), to saying it's physically impossible for a deity to exist
2. Deity? Any supernatural entity that has some degree of authority on the universe or parts thereof, and that is the object of worship
3. The belief that one or more supernatural entity/ies govern the universe (or parts of the universe) with a will of their own, vs. the belief that the universe isn't governed at all, and that everything happens by chance and natural processes
@Elessar Commenting on 1. What is the evidence for and against the existence of gods? I'm a theist and I believe in the existence of many gods, but worship only one. I also know that many gods don't exist. Historically gods are created by people who know they don't exist. Amaterasu, for example, is a Shinto goddess. The Shinto deities were created in the Nihongi and Kojiki to instruct nationalism and morality to Japanese youth. No one ever thought of them as literally existing.
2. A deity is what you describe in your example, but that isn't the only example. A deity, or god, is anything or anyone worshipped. The Bible, for example, has many gods. Some of them exist, some don't. Some supernatural, some not. Moses, the judges of Israel, Jesus, the Sumerian Tammuz, Pharaoh, for example, are gods that literally exist.
3. Supernatural simply means, literally, above nature. In other words something that is beyond what we might observe in nature. Once giant squid and whales were supernatural. They were thought to be mythological like mermaids or unicorns. Not all gods are supernatural, nor need exist. Not all supernatural beings govern universes or parts of it.
It sounds to me like you have presupposed a "scientific" perspective on theism that isn't very scientific. I think a lot of people do that to be on the safe side of what they assume, wrongly, to be reason and logic. Most people are idiots so what most people think is always wrong, so to be on that "safe" side is only an illusion. Not a very well thought out one but that's okay because most people don't think much about anything, they only form ideological fixation. Consequently most people, even if they think that logic, reason, science, etc. are on their side, will get everything about their ideological fixation completely wrong. Science, logic, reason is used very much like a false god.
@PathwayMachine 1. The onus probandi principle (which is the same principle we honor for pretty much everything, from science, to law) states that the burden of proof is on those who assert something exists/happens/happened, not on those who defend the observable status quo (inexistence until proven). So the most basic instance of atheism (agnosticism?) is pretty much that none of those who assert a religion is real has convinced me with incontrovertible proof of their hypothesis, so I simply don't believe in any religious system, but don't have an explanation of how the universe originated either.
2. No, not necessarily, the authority is a core element of the definition. Christians, Muslims and Jews categorically exclude the existence of multiple gods, and the figures you reference (e.g. the trinity, angels, prophets, etc.) in spite of being supernatural entities to some degree, don't have the authority on the universe that would grant them a deity status. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't speak of monotheistic religions.
3. Above nature means that one stands above the physical plane, unconstrained by physical laws that define what's possible in nature, not what currently exists in nature at a given time. A dinosaur isn't supernatural, for instance. An atheist believes (until sufficient evidence is given, which thus far never happened) that no such entity could exist in the universe.
No it's not really a "scientific" approach as science has nothing to do with religions, deities, or anything that is "above nature" per the definition above; it's at most a philosophical one. The fact that most people inappropriately use (misinterpreted) science, (flawed) logic but even religion to convince themselves of what they already believe in is a thing but I don't really get what it has to do with this topic.
Science, mathematics, logic, etc. cannot be bend to produce the result you want them to produce, you'd have to put external limitations to it (e.g. make it illegal to research on a certain topic; though in that case we're in the scope of law and not science anymore) in order to prevent a certain outcome, as everything it says needs to be reproducivle and independently verifiable. Religion can be arbitrarily bent to make it say whatever you want it to say. See for instance how Christianity originally was pretty much an anarchical thing, and now it's embraced and bent by wealth-hoarding authoritarians, of all people. Comparing the two is inappropriate, they're entirely different things.
@Elessar I don't have time to give an answer worthy of your response this morning, Elessar, I have to take my dad to have heart surgery early today. I will get back to you and @DocSavage later on today, hopefully.
@Elessar The burden of proof is on you. Whether faith or science. Because ultimately it is your responsibility, not science or religion. It most certainly is not the burden of faith or science to supply you with anything. So, let's look at some misconceptions. Always fun stuff.
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies. If one speaks the factually incorrect statement that there is no gods, it is their burden of proof. Proof isn't necessary for the faithful. Perhaps that is one of the most common fallacies of atheism. Do you know why faith is more important than science?
Let's say you were a very wealthy young person looking for a faithful companion and all of the people in your circle were aware of the fact that you were very wealthy and so only apply for monetary incentive. You have to 'advertise' so to speak, outside your circle without letting potential candidates know about your wealth. That way you can get to know who are genuine candidates. The Bible talks about Jesus not wanting the unbelievers to be saved, which is why he taught to them in parables they couldn't get to understand. God only wants people who are genuine. Not the unfaithful looking for a ticket to heaven or paradise. God wants you to want him.
So, you have to consider the very real possibility that no religion has presented itself to you in any real way because you would rather it wouldn't. And that's actually a great aspect of faith in my example above. You don't want a religion and you don't need one. the existence of the universe is irrelevant. Your knowing where it might have came from wouldn't likely change your position because that position is right for you presently.
@PathwayMachine Science already carries its own evidence with every assertion (see the scientific process), religion does not. Regarding this specific issue (existence of deities) science has no saying altogether, as we're outside the physical/measurable plane, the only ones who mindlessly bring it on are always people motivated by religion, not people of science. At most philosophy would care about a/theism, but not science.
And no, the burden of proof is on those who assert something is different than observable reality, observable reality being that neither me nor anyone else has ever seen a deity and proven their existence. That's the ground zero.
You can have faith in that the same way I can have faith in the existence of a space teapot that orbits Earth, just too small to be seen but definitely there. Faith isn't evidence, and my hypothesis would be (rightfully) discarded by anyone who thinks that an orbital teapot makes no sense, especially with zero evidence but one guy telling them "trust me bro, either trust me it exists or trust me you'll rot in hell".
Science already carries its own evidence with every assertion (see the scientific process), religion does not.
Okay. That's a claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's a lot of work. Or a lot of speculation. Let's make it easy for the reader, assuming there is one.
1. Science is a method of investigation, not a belief system.
2. You don't use science for anything. You don't practice science anymore than you do religion. You only assume, in ignorance, that science, rather than any other god, is on your side. It makes you feel smart. Like a religious person feels the illusion of moral superiority. It's an illusion. Demonstrable. I will demonstrate that at the end of this post.
Summary: Science and faith are similar in that they are both the practice of ignorance. Science because it is looking for one type of answers it doesn't have and faith because those answers, which are of a different kind, can never fully be achieved. Without faith science couldn't operate. Without science religion has no problem.
Important definitions provided by Oxford's Dictionary:
A. Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. B. Religion: A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. C. Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained or knowledge of any kind.
Regarding this specific issue (existence of deities) science has no saying altogether, as we're outside the physical/measurable plane, the only ones who mindlessly bring it on are always people motivated by religion, not people of science.
1. Who are we?
2. There are millions of deities (gods) within the physical/measurable plane.
3. Mindlessly? Not mindlessly, ideologically. Which is what you are doing here.
Summary: Ideology blinds the atheist using the false application of science instead of using science to actually investigate their ideological fixation.
And no, the burden of proof is on those who assert something is different than observable reality, observable reality being that neither me nor anyone else has ever seen a deity and proven their existence. That's the ground zero.
Ground zero? A central point in an area of fast change or intense activity? I have observed and proven the existence of many deities. Several in this thread. But as I've also stated all the while, a deity doesn't have to exist to be a deity. A deity (god) is anything or anyone worshipped, i.e. respected, venerated, above anything else. Kim Jong Un. Eric Clapton. The Cross. According to the Bible Moses and the Judges of Israel and the Sumerian King Tammuz (Nimrod) were God(s). Even if those people didn't literally exist they would still be gods that exist in that sense.
Evolution, specifically one Biblical kind becoming another (bird into a lizard) has NEVER been observed. What has always been observed is the Bible's kinds producing their own. So, while the Bible has no problem with evolution in the observable sense, i.e. things change, there is variation, Evolution beyond that is not observable reality as you describe it above. Evolution is, as such, supernatural. Above what we observe in nature.
You can have faith in that the same way I can have faith in the existence of a space teapot that orbits Earth, just too small to be seen but definitely there.
No. We can't have faith in that because we know it not to be true. You conflate faith with stupidity. That's your ideology.
Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
You and I don't know if there is the alleged teapot, but we can assume it's absence. If someone claimed the teapot to be their God it would then be a god, whether it existed or not. Does that make sense? Jehovah, my God, the God of the Jews, the Bible, wouldn't be a God anymore if no one worshipped him even if he did actually exist, but neither you nor I can say with any certainty that he does or doesn't exist.
The only difference between me and you is that I have studied the subject for over a quarter of a century. Prior to that I was an atheist (without gods) for as long. You only assume, unscientifically, that that specific God and the supernatural doesn't exist.
I say that's fair. A reasonable and logical conclusion. Though it differs from my own, my approach is far more scientific than yours.
Faith isn't evidence, and my hypothesis would be (rightfully) discarded by anyone who thinks that an orbital teapot makes no sense, especially with zero evidence but one guy telling them "trust me bro, either trust me it exists or trust me you'll rot in hell".
First, I want to thank you for a refreshingly intelligent and thoughtful debate. I would have a couple points to make regarding the last part of your statement.
I agree faith isn't evidence. Faith is often misunderstood by unbelievers even though they have faith in many aspects themselves. I often (and even in this thread, maybe you didn't see) use the Latin word credit to demonstrate faith. The Latin word credit means, literally, one believes. From that word come credible, credential, accredited, credence, incredible, credulous, discredit, incredulity, etc. One is given credit by a loan because the creditor believes the borrower will return it. He doesn't know that, he believes it. So, if the creditor doesn't believe the borrower will repay the loan he has no faith. It's not a question of existence or ignorance, it's a question of belief or disbelief.
Subjective.
Jesus said, figuratively, that faith could move mountains. This was also literally true because nearly 200 years after Zechariah’s prophecy was given regarding Tyre, it was fulfilled. In 332 BCE Alexander the Great marched his army across Asia Minor and, in his sweep southward, paused long enough to give his attention to Tyre. When the city refused to open its gates, Alexander in his rage had his army scrape up the ruins of the mainland city and throw it into the sea, thus building a causeway out to the island city, all of this in fulfillment of prophecy. (Ezekiel 26:4, 12) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tyre_(332_BC))
In a more modern sense, fi you've seen a mountain mining operation you've seen faith (and literally credit, i.e. business loans) moving mountains.
Now, I promised I would demonstrate your ignorance supported by ideological fixation. Keep in mind that, as I've said elsewhere, there isn't anything wrong with being ignorant of religion and faith. If you have no interest in the subject the only contention begins, outside of ideological fixation, after you've made a claim you then have the burden of proof with. Unlike my claim that evolution as I described it has never been observed. I can't prove that. But there is no evidence it has been observed.
Regarding your mention of "rotting in hell" my contention is it is uninformed and probably a good reason for your disbelief in ignorance. Hell is an English word that means cover/conceal. So, in 1611, when the KJV was written that's how it was used. To hell potatoes meant to put them in a cellar or bury them underground. A book heller put the cover on a book. To hel (one l) a house meant to cover a portion with tile. Similar words sharing the same root meaning are hull, the covering of a nut or portion of a ship. Hall a covered building for gathering people or storing goods, hill, whole, heal, etc. The word appears in the Bible translated accurately from the Hebrew sheol and Greek hades, both of which mean basically a grave. According to the Bible Jesus went to hell, God is in hell figuratively, and everyone who has or will ever live will go to hell. The grave. There is no suffering in hell, nor any moral distinction. Rich, poor, righteous, unrighteous, all go to hell and are unconscious there. (Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, 10; Proverbs 15:11; Psalm 139:7, 8; Amos 9:1, 2)
Jewish theology was distorted by the influence of Alexander the Great in 332 BCE because unlike Tyre, mentioned above, the Jews opened the gates to him and showed him the Biblical prophecies referring to him.
Image: Alexander the Great in the Temple of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: C. 1736
Christianity had the same fate when they were likewise influenced by Constantine the Great in 325 CE. So the Bible stuff you think is foolishness comes from "great thinkers" in Greek philosophy like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato and elsewhere. Not the Bible. And your right about that stuff. It is foolishness. The Bible doesn't teach the immortal soul (Socrates), trinity (Plato), hell (Dante, Milton), all good people go to heaven, Jesus died on a cross (Constantine), Easter (Pagan goddess of fertility Astarte), or Christmas (Winter solstice, Dickens).
But then again, religions aren't the only ones to adopt such foolishness from Greek philosophy. Science did as well. Evolution comes from Aristotle, Empedocles, Anaximander, and Anaxagoras.
