In fact, I personally think it’s the best response that I’ve ever heard. On soooo many levels that one is cleverly subversive and straight to the point.

I don’t want to argue for 20 minutes just to get to the part where I say, “Are you saying that you believe in talking donkeys and snakes? You believe that a man lived 900 years? The earths 6,000 years old? Have you SEEEEN the Grand Canyon? etc…..”

Nope, your one line sentence say’s it all. Well done my good and faithless servant.

RationalOkie –
Ya…there is actually a guy in Oklahoma that’s rational.

With respect to science vs. the current big-3 monotheisms, the relationship is strongly asymmetrical in favor of science. Science is the arbiter of which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not “known” — that is, are given the always provisional metalinguistic accolade, ‘is true.’

Such statements are ‘methodologically fit’ according to the *relevant testing procedures within science itself.* This is the meaning of the scientific revolution — who certifies empirical knowledge?, who shall decide what statements are true?, and by what criteria?

Neither ‘ethical fitness’ as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers, nor ‘theological fitness’ as in Plato and his xian followers, is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement. (Not, of course, for 20% of the US population that claims the Sun revolves about the Earth because a jewish myth implies it!)

Methodologically, whenever so-called sacred writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim.

There is no “executive privilege” for God.

bipolar2
© 2008

Obviously these are summaries and there is a great deal more to them, and they represent my personal view only. I have, however, found in working on them, that I am confident I can defend myself simply when asked why I don’t believe in god. I simply answer, “Why should I?” and force them to make arguments I can then answer.

I agree with what you say in the second paragraph, there is loads of evidence that points toward the non-existence of that special kind of god.

In your first paragraph you are touching upon an epistemological issue and we should keep in mind that it is not just _me_ who doesn’t see the evidence for god, but something much more sinister—the world being what it is, _any_ rational agent should reach the same conclusion given the evidence available: There is no god. Of course, we might be wrong, but that’s not really the point.

So, I still think “there is no evidence” is a perfectly good response to the question, “why don’t you believe in God”? It is not just that _I_ don’t see the evidence, it’s much bigger than all that—any rational agent won’t see the evidence.

Thanks for the interesting comments. I suppose by “appeal to ignorance,” I was alluding to the idea that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Which would probably have been a better way to put it, now that I think about it. Saying “there is no evidence for God” automatically assumes “there is no evidence that I know of for His existence.” The believer will naturally then assume that he possesses knowledge which you do not.

My point is that the atheist is not in the position of simply lacking information about God, but is in possession of abundant, verifiable information that is inconsistent with the idea that the “specific kind of god” you mention is objectively real. In that sense, then, it’s probably more effective to argue what you have than to argue what you lack.

Further, it is not any old god that believers are interested in; they are interested in a very specific kind of god, one that cares about humans, rewards believers in the afterlife, is good, is powerful, etc. And there is no, even remotely convincing, evidence for that kind of god whatsoever.

You should read David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, you might find it helpful.

When the believe asks, “do you believe in god?” my reply is simple:

I do not believe you.

Since they are the messenger, they need to be convincing.