I’m watching this episode of The Point on atheism.
The first item was a clip of James Randi, who started by saying there are two kinds of atheist, those who say there is no god, and those who say they can’t find any evidence for god. My version of the second one is different: it’s that I don’t know of any good reason to think there’s a god. That includes evidence, but it’s more than that.
Seen it?
13 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Beatrice
August 20, 2012 at 10:14 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t see a difference between saying “there is no god” and “I can’t find any evidence for god”.
I can’t find any evidence that unicorns exist. THere is no evidence that unicorns exist. Therefore, I can pretty safely say that no unicorns exist.
PZ Myers
August 20, 2012 at 10:17 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Seen it? I was on it!
Beatrice
August 20, 2012 at 10:43 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Unless of course one considers a possibility that some evidence for god(s) could be presented eventually. Only in that case there is a difference.
But I’m fairly sure, I know no such evidence exists, so it’s all the same to me.
Ophelia Benson
August 20, 2012 at 10:45 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I know that, PZ, I haven’t gotten to that part yet!
smhll
August 20, 2012 at 11:02 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I must be getting the Ecuador reference completely awry. My mind went “There will be unicorns in Ecuador… and Julian Assange will be riding them bareback.”
Loqi
August 20, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I didn’t like James Randi’s part. Let’s stop acting like there’s a difference between people who don’t believe something exists and people who haven’t found convincing evidence that something exists. They’re the same fucking thing.
NateHevens
August 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just started watching it now. Already I’m excited by it, and I’m only 1 min and 40 secs in…
NateHevens
August 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Also, I have to agree with PZ Myers… Sean Carroll is right about everything…
601
August 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was glad the host began with the assumption of no gods, to frame the topic to the details of atheism. We need to delegitimize the debate over supernaturalism, and just focus on the consequences of naturalism.
And why do we have to constantly apologize for the obvious fact that one cannot prove a negative?
1) There is no evidence for the existence of any gods.
2) There is overwhelming evidence that people create gods (history is littered with them).
3) Psychology explains why people need gods (no answer is scarier than a wrong answer).
So, does one of these fantasies, by coincidence, happen to match reality? Maybe, but that is still an absurd basis for social organization.
latsot
August 20, 2012 at 11:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m not even sure that there’s *any* evidence that could convince me that a god exists. What would that evidence look like?
fredbloggs
August 21, 2012 at 12:49 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@latsot – I don’t think we have to worry; believers in fairy tales often imply atheists are willfully denying the existence of god and pine “but what evidence would convince you?” (subtext: we could provide endless evidence, but you still wouldn’t believe)
To which my standard response is “Don’t know. what have you got?”
Which usually results in loose talk about trees and butterflies.
Neil Rickert
August 21, 2012 at 8:43 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t have any trouble saying that there is a God. And there is plenty of evidence. But that God (or those Gods) are all human cultural constructs with no basis in physical reality.
I take “atheism” as meaning “Whether or not there is a god has no significance as to how I live my life.”
For perspective, mathematics is a human construct with no basis in physical reality. However, I most certainly am not an “amathematicsist” – in fact I’m a mathematician. That something is a human construct is not, by itself, a problem. Mathematics has proven to be a very useful human construct. Religions and their various gods have proven themselves to be harmful, to be “useful” only for pernicious purposes (for example, anti-humanist purposes).
Ant Allan
August 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Saw it. Like it. Agree somewhat with the criticism of Randi; worrying about those logical niceties is old-school scepticism, and non-scientific scepticism at that. As Sean noted, science has no certain proofs and the question is really about warranted belief. Liked all the panellists, but there seemed to be something missing…
/@