Atheistic Double Standard?

[ImmortalFlame]

They make lots of claims about lots of stuff. This does not necessarily have to be a claim in relation to something religious. For a very crude example: I declare that people are getting dumber with each generation. I have no evidence to support that claim. Now where is the evidence for your god?

But if the claim isn't anything to do with religion or God, how is it an "atheistic double standard"?

Do you know any claims that atheists routinely (or, at least, generally) make which is an example of this double-standard?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But if the claim isn't anything to do with religion or God, how is it an "atheistic double standard"?

Do you know any claims that atheists routinely (or, at least, generally) make which is an example of this double-standard?

"how is it an "atheistic double standard""

It means in relation to the group of people we label atheist.

"Do you know any claims that atheists routinely (or, at least, generally) make which is an example of this double-standard?"

How about this statement: "There is no evidence of God".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"how is it an "atheistic double standard""

It means in relation to the group of people we label atheist.

But if the claim is nothing to do with religion or God, how can that claim be considered a claim generally made by atheists?

"Do you know any claims that atheists routinely (or, at least, generally) make which is an example of this double-standard?"

How about this statement: "There is no evidence of God".

There's evidence of God?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

B

ut if the claim is nothing to do with religion or God, how can that claim be considered a claim generally made by atheists?


There's evidence of God?

"But if the claim is nothing to do with religion or God, how can that claim be considered a claim generally made by atheists?"

What, you don't think atheists make claims about non-religious things? We are talking about specific group of people, this is not that hard of a concept.

"There's evidence of God?"

A lot of people seem to think so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What, you don't think atheists make claims about non-religious things? We are talking about specific group of people, this is not that hard of a concept.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. As a group, atheists only have one thing in common - the lack of belief in a God. So, as a group, you're not capable of talking broadly about any of their other positions, because by defining them a as "atheists" you are only acknowledging the ONE position that they all share.

For example, if I were to say "Why do theists make claims like 'the earth is flat'", you would obviously respond that this is not a claim that is made by all theists, nor is it a defining characteristic of being a theists. Theists come in all stripes, just like atheists - the only thing they have in common is a single position with regards to belief in God.

Do you understand?

A lot of people seem to think so.

And where is this evidence?

 

[ChristineM]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

Could you please advise what claims atheist make?

Atheism is defined as : disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Other than that all bets are off

Atheism is not making the claim, if simply disbelieves your claims because of the complete lack of evidence.

And that in itself is a form of evidence to justify atheism. Proof by exhaustion. The proof runs thus... In about 10,000 years since the concept of god's was first invented not a single fragment of verifiable, falsifiable evidence has ever been offered despite literally billions of people making the claim they have such evidence.

It would only take one fragment of falsifiable evidence to destroy that proof and put am end to atheism at a stroke

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You're not understanding what I'm saying. As a group, atheists only have one thing in common - the lack of belief in a God. So, as a group, you're not capable of talking broadly about any of their other positions, because by defining them a as "atheists" you are only acknowledging the ONE position that they all share.

For example, if I were to say "Why do theists make claims like 'the earth is flat'", you would obviously respond that this is not a claim that is made by all theists, nor is it a defining characteristic of being a theists. Theists come in all stripes, just like atheists - the only thing they have in common is a single position with regards to belief in God.

Do you understand?


And where is this evidence?

"As a group, atheists only have one thing in common - the lack of belief in a God. "

Oh, can you prove this? Can your really prove there are no additional common general trends among atheist?

There is that double standard again.

"And where is this evidence?"

I think you confusing sufficient evidence that convinces you with sufficient evidence that convinces other people.

Now I don't find the so called evidence convincing either, but the statement: "There is no evidence of God" is also an unfalsifiable claim.

You can claim to have no evidence which convinces you of God, but to state out right that there is no evidence which convinces other people of God's existence is clearly not true.

I could claim a rock on a street was placed there by God or the positions of the stars are evidence of God and you'd have no way to prove it was otherwise. I think some of you forget that unfalsifiability goes both ways.

That is another the double standard. I agree that God is an unfalsiable claim but so is saying in no uncertain terms is there evidence of God. And you repeating "Where is this evidence?" does not suddenly make the claim falsifiable.

Personally, if someone says, "I have evidence that convinces me God is real" then I don't see a reason to doubt that. That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards but that does not make their statement untrue. I very much believe that they believe they have convincing evidence of God.

 

[ChristineM]

"As a group, atheists only have one thing in common - the lack of belief in a God. "

Oh, can you prove this? Can your really prove there are no additional common general trends among atheist?

There is that double standard again.

"And where is this evidence?"

I think you confusing sufficient evidence that convinces you with sufficient evidence that convinces other people.

Now I don't find the so called evidence convincing either, but the statement: "There is no evidence of God" is also an unfalsifiable claim.

You can claim to have no evidence which convinces you of God, but to state out right that there is no evidence which convinces other people of God's existence is clearly not true.

I could claim a rock on a street was placed there by God or the positions of the stars are evidence of God and you'd have no way to prove it was otherwise. I think some of you forget that unfalsifiability goes both ways.

That is another the double standard. I agree that God is an unfalsiable claim but so is saying in no uncertain terms is there evidence of God. And you repeating "Where is this evidence?" does not suddenly make the claim falsifiable.

Personally, if someone says, "I have evidence that convinces me God is real" then I don't see a reason to doubt that. That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards but that does not make their statement untrue. I very much believe that they believe they have convincing evidence of God.

The credibility is proof, as i said, other than that all bets are off

I am providing an accepted mathematical and scientific proof, that you choose to ignore it is hardly my problem.

How is it possible to falsify a non existent concept?

Oh there are other evidences, several, each independent but complimentary.

Actually phorensicaly easy to prove where the rock came from and science (Cosmology) shows exactly how the stars got there.

What you are saying is you have no proof of your claim and that upsets you because there is proof that your claim is false but your faith will not allow you to admit it.

You see, when someone makes a claim then i do see a need for that claimant to justify their claim of people could tell you any nonsense couldn't they?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The credibility is proof, as i said, other than that all bets are off

I am providing an accepted mathematical and scientific proof, that you choose to ignore it is hardly my problem.

How is it possible to falsify a non existent concept?

Oh there are other evidences, several, each independent but complimentary.

Actually phorensicaly easy to prove where the rock came from and science (Cosmology) shows exactly how the stars got there.

What you are saying is you have no proof of your claim and that upsets you because there is proof that your claim is false but your faith will not allow you to admit it.

You see, when someone makes a claim then i do see a need for that claimant to justify their claim of people could tell you any nonsense couldn't they?

I bet you think you are talking to a believer.

 

[ChristineM]

I bet you think you are talking to a believer.

I am talking to someone who made a statement based on a false premise and am trying to set them straight just as others have tried earlier in this thread. There is a saying about casting seeds on stony ground is there not?

 

[paarsurrey]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

I agree with the above.
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am talking to someone who made a statement based on a false premise and am trying to set them straight just as others have tried earlier in this thread. There is a saying about casting seeds on stony ground is there not?

So how does it feel to be just like a theist?

 

[Valjean]

"As a group, atheists only have one thing in common - the lack of belief in a God. "

Oh, can you prove this? Can your really prove there are no additional common general trends among atheist?

Not talking about general trends, we're talking one unique feature.

"And where is this evidence?"

I think you confusing sufficient evidence that convinces you with sufficient evidence that convinces other people.

Credibility varies. Some people believe pretty much anything their told, even if there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Personally, if someone says, "I have evidence that convinces me God is real" then I don't see a reason to doubt that. That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards but that does not make their statement untrue. I very much believe that they believe they have convincing evidence of God.

"I have evidence that convinces me God is real" Is not a measure of the robustness of the evidence. Individual credulity may vary.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Not talking about general trends, we're talking one unique feature.

"And where is this evidence?"
Credibility varies. Some people believe pretty much anything their told, even if there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"I have evidence that convinces me God is real" Is not a measure of the robustness of the evidence. Individual credulity may vary.

"Not talking about general trends, we're talking one unique feature."

You do know what the word only means, right?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

In my opinion, and generally speaking, no.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with the above.
Regards

I would too -- if they actually made any claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh, can you prove this? Can your really prove there are no additional common general trends among atheist?

I never said that there weren't. I simply said that you can't make blanket statements about atheists because atheism only describes one, very specific position.

I think you confusing sufficient evidence that convinces you with sufficient evidence that convinces other people.

No, I just asked where the evidence is.

Now I don't find the so called evidence convincing either, but the statement: "There is no evidence of God" is also an unfalsifiable claim.

Not really. All you'd have to do is present evidence of God.

You can claim to have no evidence which convinces you of God, but to state out right that there is no evidence which convinces other people of God's existence is clearly not true.

But that's not what "evidence" means. Evidence is necessarily an objective fact that lends credibility to a given conclusion. If it is entirely subjective or personal, then it's not really evidence.

I could claim a rock on a street was placed there by God or the positions of the stars are evidence of God and you'd have no way to prove it was otherwise.

Actually, logically, you can.

I think some of you forget that unfalsifiability goes both ways.

Can you present me with an unfalsifiable claim I've made?

That is another the double standard. I agree that God is an unfalsiable claim but so is saying in no uncertain terms is there evidence of God.

But it isn't.

And you repeating "Where is this evidence?" does not suddenly make the claim falsifiable.

No, but presenting evidence would falsify it.

Personally, if someone says, "I have evidence that convinces me God is real" then I don't see a reason to doubt that. That evidence may not convince me or be of scientific standards but that does not make their statement untrue. I very much believe that they believe they have convincing evidence of God.

They may believe it, but that doesn't mean that they actually have real evidence.

I think you're just going off on unjustified tangeants now.

 

[james bond]

But non believers make no claims

This is wrong. Atheists are usually wrong.

Let's review. Strong atheists claim to disavow the existence of God while the weaker ones claim to believe that God does not exist. Thus, atheists who say that believers have to show evidence of their claims have a double standard and are hypocrites based on their beliefs that Christians are making claims of the God.

Not all non-believers ask for claims of God, so I am only referring to those that do and those are called the internet atheists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I never said that there weren't. I simply said that you can't make blanket statements about atheists because atheism only describes one, very specific position.


No, I just asked where the evidence is.


Not really. All you'd have to do is present evidence of God.


But that's not what "evidence" means. Evidence is necessarily an objective fact that lends credibility to a given conclusion. If it is entirely subjective or personal, then it's not really evidence.


Actually, logically, you can.


Can you present me with an unfalsifiable claim I've made?


But it isn't.


No, but presenting evidence would falsify it.


They may believe it, but that doesn't mean that they actually have real evidence.

I think you're just going off on unjustified tangeants now.

"I never said that there weren't."

What you said and I quote was, " As a group, atheists only have one thing in common." Which of course was just a silly thing to say.

"But that's not what "evidence" means. Evidence is necessarily an objective fact that lends credibility to a given conclusion. If it is entirely subjective or personal, then it's not really evidence."

Ah, another baseless claim . . . .

In the OED, the recognized academic standard dictionary there are 9 entries for the word evidence as a noun, and not a single one suggest it is "necessarily an objective fact".

Among them are:

An appearance from which inferences may be drawn; an indication, mark, sign, token, trace.

In religious language: Signs or tokens of personal salvation.

something serving as a proof.

Home : Oxford English Dictionary

This is exactly what I am talking about, you just up and decided to manifest a definition of the word evidence based on nothing but your personal opinion. The sad fact is that you could have very easily used a dictionary to find the actual definition, but instead you just started to make things up.

"But it isn't."

There is evidence of God on Pluto, prove me wrong. Maybe you should use the OED to look up unfalsifiable.

 

[james bond]

Not believing isn't even a claim to start with as aforementioned. No double standard exists.

You're one of the smarter ones. That is correct.

The converse is correct, too. "Believing isn't even a claim to start with as aforementioned. No double standard exists."

However, that's not what the non-believers, especially the internet atheists, say most of the time. Some say that it's up to the believers to show evidence because they are the ones making a claim. In other words, when someone states they believe, then the non-believer who doesn't won't take that statement as a belief of the believer. Instead, they state it's up to the believer to show evidence of "their claim." That is when the hypocrisy and double standard comes in. That said, I'm not trying to squelch debate. If non-believers would clarify what they would accept as evidence and it's something that is testable and falsifiable, or something that evidence can be shown, then they have a valid point.