There is evidence of absence when the whole concept is in question! Also you do have evidence for the negative in your analogy about the little girl, the neighbours son exists and is a possible explanation.
Don't take the analogy to be literally religion's claims. You know the neighbor's son exists. It was not about the existence of the neighbor's son but about who kicked the flowers over. You have strong circumstantial evidence that your daughter did it, but you cannot know. You only know that your daughter sometimes covers up mistakes with little lies because she hates the housework she has to do for compensation. (Let's not debate whether that is good or bad or even sane. I made it up to get the point across.) You can equate this with the predisposition of humans to see agency in randomness. Furthermore, you have circumstantial evidence (dirty shoes, ...) that in itself doesn't prove she did it. Just like many conflicting religions don't prove that none of them is actually correct. And finally, she can't come up with evidence that the boy actually did it. Do you say "I can never know" or do you ackowledge all circumstances and say "I don't think the boy did it unless I see evidence"? Remember, you're never making the claim that she actually did it. You only disbelieve her claim. Edit: Effectively, we cannot know whether there is any god (agnostic), but there is strong circumstantial evidence that it's all made up, even if there can't be actual evidence that it's false, so we don't believe (atheistic).
By the inner logic of the thing itself, both theism and atheism are taking us to "impossible to answer" questions... A futile exercise! So, why not leave it ALL behind and concentrate on things we can and indeed ought to do... Things that are much more important for us, as in what we are (not) doing in this world... Gnosis/"spoznaja" in this philosophical context is a bitch to translate! http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gnoseology Gnoseology is not the same as epistemology in Anglo-American tradition, I'm afraid... He who understands will comprehend...
In my opinion, progress is not possible if you don't challenge the unreasonable, everywhere, every time. At least it is severely hindered.
I have to agree with that. Furthermore the categorizing intellect even works the way to have an idea (of god) which the atheist denies. There is no atheist without an individual idea of god. Without god (something)..so to say.... To be theistic or atheistic, both is actually not wished by god himself (commandments) since it requires imagination of god. To believe/not believe in god makes no sense. Either one knows god as vivid reality which is not different to one-self (subject)....or not... This now might appear as a stark statement...but actually to become aware of this is the 'inner goal' of every human...anything else is a waste of 'time'..literarily spoken. Einstein said it quite well..."I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details" And Heisenberg recognized: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” BTW: Intelligence (IQ) has nothing to do with maturity and self-awareness.....(Also science has nothing to do with it)... The Germans once had the world's best education system (which created a lot of great Scientists/Philosophers) anyway they started 2 world wars...
I know, but when a kid is dragged into church every Sunday, it will become an atheist ( = won't believe God exists) as opposed to an agnostic ( = a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God). Of course that dragging the kid to church every Sunday because "this is what's best for you" it's not education at all, but those parents are flawed to begin with and they perpetuate what they've been drilled into their heads as kids by their parents and the line goes on...
Yes. Technically, the first thing you must ask when someone claims there is a god is "What do you mean by god?". Then you can measure their claims by their definition. Not the atheist has to have an idea of a god, the person making a claim has to describe what he means and then you can look at it and decide if evidence supports the claim. Not believing something when there is no evidence for it makes perfect sense and should be the default of every sane human. When you say something is not wished by god - and since you mention the commandments, you must mean the Christian God - you are already assuming he exists, so the whole argument is based on a false premise if you can't support the initial implied claim with evidence. Einstein was certainly no theist. If anything, he was a pantheist or deist, which is just a spiritually pepped up version of an atheist. Einstein never believed in a god that concerns himself with the daily affairs of humans. A deist believes that some god had made the Universe but then lost interest in it or otherwise never interferes with it again. A theist believes that a god had made the Universe and continues to watch over it and act with it. Again, this is more an argument for the god of the gaps. What you sip away is telling you to not believe in a god. No one can actually go to the bottom of the glass (know everything). Which doesn't disprove that education leads to less theism. Education only gives you the ability to critically question other outside influences. Education doesn't automatically produce only good people. But it is statistically likely to produce more non-theists than no education.
S, luckily for us, we have the capacity to think for ourselves, rebel, even start a Revolution... And if we do have authoritarian parents, we do not NOT necessarily have to become like them! In fact, lots of completely anti-authoritarian people come from such families, so another piece of evidence... Ach, I really need to stop this...
Abraham Lincoln & JFK tried and got them 6 feet under... Tesla...the same. The material stolen by the FBI from Tesla's hotel room when he was "allegedly found dead" is still considered confidential and top secret. BTW: Tesla feared for his life in the last years...and it seems he was right, in the end. Good luck with the revolution...
Tesla was not of sound mind, at the end of his life... And no one insinuates healthily he was murdered! In fact, they may have kept him under watchful eye but it was in their interest that he comes up with more stuff, given the fact they were the ones closest to the honey-pot... Sometimes conspiracy theories really are for loonies... Revolution in other parts of the world got the rulers 6 feet under, so go figure... (The fact it all went haywire after that [The French Revolution or the Russian one, for instance] doesn't mean much, really, when it comes to thinking ahead, in terms of chances the next one might have... ) Agreed, nodnar! Stopping now!
French & Russian "revolutions" were "sponsored" by US, respective German money, so you should really say "coup d'etat". If you really want to see how a revolution looks like, check out Iceland, which arrested all the corrupt bankers, made a new constitution and...voila! No more "IMF-slavery", but you didn't hear that in the press or TV, did you? I wonder why
Lots of wishful thinking here. Also lots of arrogance, assuming that just because people disagree with you that they are automatically wrong. Typical, unfortunately haha. If by "God" what is meant is an agent that does not intervene or cause changes in the universe (e.g. deism, pantheism), then the existence of such a "God" is a distinction without a difference and, for all intents & purposes, is indistinguishable from any imaginary agent (or object). If, however, by "God" what's meant is an agent separate from the universe that, at minimum, intervenes or causes changes in the universe (e.g. 'religious' or 'philosophical' theism... theistic God so to speak), then I claim such a "God" does not exist because there isn't a shred of evidence of any changes in the universe that can only be accounted for by or attributed only to such a "God" AND YET THERE MUST BE IF ANY OF THE ACCOUNTS (e.g. sacred scriptures, creedal claims, prophetic/mystical testimonials etc.) ARE TRUE. Is it reasonable to deny that the world is scientifically observable? Is it reasonable to deny that events, or changes, in the world are scientifically observable? Does the God cause events, or make changes, in the world? Which events, or changes, in the world can only be accounted for.... by the God and the science can't explain it? If there are no events, or changes, in the world which can only be accounted for by the God, then on what NON-SUBJECTIVE, NON-ANECDOTAL, CORROBORATIVE, BASIS can it be reasonably claimed that the God is real? Just think critically with an open mind.