Threads about Atheism and what it is.

[dfnj]

And the people reporting themselves as some sort of Christian on the census probably don't all believe in God.

I've heard it said there is only one Christian and He died on the cross.

 

[ChristineM]

It all goes back to proving a negative, doesn't it ?
How does one prove an absence ?
How does one prove a belief ?
NuffStuff

The absence of evidence for god is easy to prove... There is none, there has been none since the concept was first invented thousands of years ago. In fact i would say the absence of evidence for god is the most consistently proven claim in the history of humanity...

 

[Desert Snake]

Based on 500 years of science proving silly superstitions false, some atheists interpolate that therefore in all likelihood God does not exist. You have to admit Nature is absolutely relentless is abiding by the laws of physics.

But most atheists with half a brain know you can't prove a negative. I can't prove God doesn't exist because at some point in the future there may be irrefutable evidence. Most atheists claim all atheism is is a lack of belief in God.

What is really nonsensical is the way theists claim not having something IS something.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Adios

 

[Shushersbedamned]

And the people reporting themselves as some sort of Christian on the census probably don't all believe in God.

Nonsense. But a lot of people call themselves an atheist and believe in God.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...saying `godammit` doesn't count !

 

[Cacotopia]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Adios

"You said things I don't like to hear so now I'm leaving.", instead of defending my position I'm going to announce my disgust with your words, and then leave. Which only proves to me that you cannot rationally defend your own beliefs. Which in turn supports the notion that maybe your god doesn't exist, Theism is not a rational belief system. There is a multitude of videos made by several prominant atheist speakers on the subject that can word it far more eloquently than I can. Amen'Ra in particular.

 

[England my lionheart]

The absence of evidence for god is easy to prove... There is none, there has been none since the concept was first invented thousands of years ago. In fact i would say the absence of evidence for god is the most consistently proven claim in the history of humanity...

Yep

 

[dfnj]

You don't know what you're talking about.

Adios

I guess my rational thought was too much for you.

 

[Cacotopia]

I don't claim to know more than I know, but extraordinary claims like there being a god require extraordinary evidence to support them. The circular logic that the believer employs like, this circle represents all the knowledge and that in this tiny section represents all the collected data of knowledge, then outside of that god exists there. Well possibly, but even if we were to fill that circle no evidence for something outside of existence can be proven. And the believer will use that because they cannot grasp that one can't prove a negative.

Something is not nothing, and nothing is not there so you cannot test for nothing, if you could it would not be nothing and be something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense. But a lot of people call themselves an atheist and believe in God.

There are plenty of atheists in the pulpits of Christian churches; there are even more in the pews. Google "the Clergy Project" if you're interested. I guarantee that there are closeted atheists in any Christian church.

Also, the wording of census questions is sometimes wonky. I don't know the exact wording of the questions in Australia, but in Canada, the instructions for the religion question used to say something like "if you are no longer affiliated with a religion, respond with the religion in which you were raised," which meant that the reported number of "religious" people in the census summaries was inflated.

 

[Ponder This]

Ok lets break it down

I said "They say there is no evidence for god or gods, which is absolutely true and the atheist position."

You said "Either there is evidence to support a claim or there is no evidence to support a claim. What is your claim?"

I said "That's was pretty obviously in my post, ill repeat it - They say there is no evidence for god or gods"

You said "The problem is that the claim 'There is no evidence for god or gods' is not opposed to the claim 'God(s) exist'. Therefore, you have not engaged in a proper debate."

I said "The claim is relevant to atheism. And i asked relevant to the title of the thread"

Etc... Ect.. Back and forth, back and fort with you trying to manipulate what i stated so it jells your mindset.

I will repeat my original statement again. Its what i said and what i meant. It is not meant as a definition, it is meant, as stated, the atheist position.

Quote "They say there is no evidence for god or gods, which is absolutely true and the atheist position."

If you disagree , where is the evidernce?


And please don't try putting the blame on me because no wont accept my statement

Ah I see. Thank You for clarifying.
I don't think this is about people not accepting your statement. Some people do accept your statement.

Let me see if I have what you are saying correct. You are saying that all atheists believe that 'There is no evidence for a God or gods.'

And the OP says that a 'quick search negates the need of all these arguments'.
The definition of atheism is 'a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods'.
The definition is not 'a disbelief or lack of belief in evidence for the existence of a God or gods.'
So the OP was wrong: arguments about atheism are not resolved by a quick internet search.

But maybe you are right. Maybe all atheists do believe 'There is no evidence for a God or gods.'
Various pieces of 'evidence' are often debated here on RF such as the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, Near-death experience, etc. with argument presented as to why we should or should not accept them as evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Ah I see. Thank You for clarifying.
I don't think this is about people not accepting your statement. Some people do accept your statement.

Let me see if I have what you are saying correct. You are saying that all atheists believe that 'There is no evidence for a God or gods.'

And the OP says that a 'quick search negates the need of all these arguments'.
The definition of atheism is 'a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods'.
The definition is not 'a disbelief or lack of belief in evidence for the existence of a God or gods.'
So the OP was wrong: arguments about atheism are not resolved by a quick internet search.

But maybe you are right. Maybe all atheists do believe 'There is no evidence for a God or gods.'
Various pieces of 'evidence' are often debated here on RF such as the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, Near-death experience, etc. with argument presented as to why we should or should not accept them as evidence.

Why is this so difficult. Is it deliberate or are you taking lessons?

If I was quoting the definition i would have given the definition.

If i was responding to the op i would have quoted the op.

I was responding to your post #108, hence the reason i quoted your post #108

Perhaps looking up the definition of evidence would help you understand.

 

[Ponder This]

Why is this so difficult. Is it deliberate or are you taking lessons?

If I was quoting the definition i would have given the definition.

If i was responding to the op i would have quoted the op.

I was responding to your post #108, hence the reason i quoted your post #108

Perhaps looking up the definition of evidence would help you understand.

Wow. Okay. Look, I'm not trying to make a personal attack.

'There is no evidence for a God or gods' is a position.
Post #108 was about the 'lack of position' mantra and it's effect in derailing meaningful debate.

It was also about the seeming negative attitude and personal offense being expressed in this thread. I'm sorry if you find my attempts at meaningful discussion a deliberate attempt to misunderstand you.

---

That said.
The definition for evidence is 'the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.
My response is for you to examine the difference between 'evidence' and 'argument'.
An argument is 'a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong'.

People don't simply use evidence; they use arguments.
For example, the Problem of Evil Argument takes a set of assumptions (this set of assumptions are not facts; they are not evidence; they might not be true) about a God and arrives at a contradiction. The evidence presented is about the horrors of the world and not about the existence of a God. On this basis, someone could decide not to believe in (lack belief in) a God (despite evidence or lack of evidence for a God not being discussed).

I don't mean to misunderstand you. Perhaps you mean something deeper than what I've said. Perhaps evidence (or lack of evidence) is something truly profound. Please forgive me, if I don't find it obviously so.

 

[ChristineM]

Wow. Okay. Look, I'm not trying to make a personal attack.

'There is no evidence for a God or gods' is a position.
Post #108 was about the 'lack of position' mantra and it's effect in derailing meaningful debate.

It was also about the seeming negative attitude and personal offense being expressed in this thread. I'm sorry if you find my attempts at meaningful discussion a deliberate attempt to misunderstand you.

---

That said.
The definition for evidence is 'the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.
My response is for you to examine the difference between 'evidence' and 'argument'.
An argument is 'a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong'.

People don't simply use evidence; they use arguments.
For example, the Problem of Evil Argument takes a set of assumptions (this set of assumptions are not facts; they are not evidence; they might not be true) about a God and arrives at a contradiction. The evidence presented is about the horrors of the world and not about the existence of a God. On this basis, someone could decide not to believe in (lack belief in) a God (despite evidence or lack of evidence for a God not being discussed).

I don't mean to misunderstand you. Perhaps you mean something deeper than what I've said. Perhaps evidence (or lack of evidence) is something truly profound. Please forgive me, if I don't find it obviously so.

Im not interested in an argument/opinion only information or facts.

The fact is no evidence of a gods existance exists. All arguments can do is provide personal opining which has no baring on the fact.

I guess its the difference between subjective and objective thinking.

 

[Ponder This]

Im not interested in an argument/opinion only information or facts.

The fact is no evidence of a gods existance exists. All arguments can do is provide personal opining which has no baring on the fact.

I guess its the difference between subjective and objective thinking.

Argument is not opinion; argument is reason.
'It rained yesterday' is a fact.
I'm more interested in what the weather will be tomorrow.
'There is no milk in my fridge' is not the same as 'there is no milk'.

So if you want to accept 'There is no evidence for a God or gods' as fact instead of belief, then you have to make an accounting of all evidence. I'm doubtful that you have examined all evidence before reaching that conclusion, but you would not need to examine all the evidence before reaching that belief. Alternatively, you may have some other reason that the statement must be indisputably true.

For example, someone might reject the Bible as evidence supporting the existence of God on the basis that it was written by men or perhaps on the basis that it has been modified or perhaps on the basis that it doesn't make sense. Another person will not find that sufficient grounds to reject it as evidence. That person might decide that there is a sufficient amount of 'historical accuracy' to consider it as evidence of God's existence. These people might even come together and have a debate! In order to reject (or accept) the Bible as evidence, there should be a reason. And then you need to do the same thing for all the other scriptures regarding gods, for all the spiritual experiences related to gods, for all the claimed miracles regarding gods, etc.

Of course, if it's true that 'a God or gods do not exist'... then it follows as a corollary that 'there is no evidence for their existence'.

 

[Milton Platt]

There is no clear, academic consensus as to how exactly the term should be used. For example, consider the following definitions of ‘atheism’ or ‘atheist’, all taken from serious scholarly writings published in the last ten years

1. ‘Atheism […] is the belief that there is no God or gods’ (Baggini 2003: 3)
2. ‘At its core, atheism […] designates a position (not a “belief”) that includes or asserts no god(s)’ (Eller 2010: 1)
3. ‘[A]n atheist is someone without a belief in God; he or she need not be someone who believes that God does not exist’ (Martin 2007: 1)
4. ‘[A]n atheist does not believe in the god that theism favours’ (Cliteur 2009: 1)
5. ‘By “atheist,” I mean precisely what the word has always been understood to mean—a principled and informed decision to reject belief in God’ (McGrath 2004: 175)

The Oxford Handbook of Atheism

All of these definitions essentially say the same thing.
However, you are correct. Words can have multiple meanings, and the meanings can change with usage over the years.
Some atheists simply lack a belief in the existence of a god. Others believe no god exists (sometimes called hard atheism). Still others are "anti-theist", meaning that they are essentially against religion and have a negative view of it.
In any case, the thing to do is for everyone to stop attacking straw men and to simply ask the person claiming an atheistic stance to define how he is using the word.

 

[Cacotopia]

Ah I see. Thank You for clarifying.
I don't think this is about people not accepting your statement. Some people do accept your statement.

Let me see if I have what you are saying correct. You are saying that all atheists believe that 'There is no evidence for a God or gods.'

And the OP says that a 'quick search negates the need of all these arguments'.
The definition of atheism is 'a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods'.
The definition is not 'a disbelief or lack of belief in evidence for the existence of a God or gods.'
So the OP was wrong: arguments about atheism are not resolved by a quick internet search.

But maybe you are right. Maybe all atheists do believe 'There is no evidence for a God or gods.'
Various pieces of 'evidence' are often debated here on RF such as the Bible, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, Near-death experience, etc. with argument presented as to why we should or should not accept them as evidence.

What are you saying I said? Atheism is a position on belief, not believing, lacking belief in gods, reservation of belief in gods. saying "all atheists" in your statement renders it false, since there is no consensus between us. It's a label not a group.

The reasons for which Atheists label themselves under the same banner vary in a wide arc. Try next time to not mix the definition and the reason for the label together. They are separate from each other.

 

[ChristineM]

Argument is not opinion; argument is reason.
'It rained yesterday' is a fact.
I'm more interested in what the weather will be tomorrow.
'There is no milk in my fridge' is not the same as 'there is no milk'.

So if you want to accept 'There is no evidence for a God or gods' as fact instead of belief, then you have to make an accounting of all evidence. I'm doubtful that you have examined all evidence before reaching that conclusion, but you would not need to examine all the evidence before reaching that belief. Alternatively, you may have some other reason that the statement must be indisputably true.

For example, someone might reject the Bible as evidence supporting the existence of God on the basis that it was written by men or perhaps on the basis that it has been modified or perhaps on the basis that it doesn't make sense. Another person will not find that sufficient grounds to reject it as evidence. That person might decide that there is a sufficient amount of 'historical accuracy' to consider it as evidence of God's existence. These people might even come together and have a debate! In order to reject (or accept) the Bible as evidence, there should be a reason. And then you need to do the same thing for all the other scriptures regarding gods, for all the spiritual experiences related to gods, for all the claimed miracles regarding gods, etc.

Of course, if it's true that 'a God or gods do not exist'... then it follows as a corollary that 'there is no evidence for their existence'.

If it is fact that it rained yesterday then how you argue against fact?

Strawman, what have fridges to do do with it?

It is a fact that no evidence for god has ever been put forward.
Evidence: in 10000 years plus of god worship not one of the billions of believers has ever provided evidence of god or gods.

Please dont group me as a religious, i have looked at the evidence, in some cases examined it mathematically for example, e=mc2 shows the god of revelation 19:6 kjv is an impossibility.. Geologically, there is no evidence to support a world wide flood. Biologically, the Adam and Eve scenario is disproven by DNA. I won't go into the medical, military or cosmological evidences.

The bible is evidence of books. If people want to see it as confirmation bias with little regard for the meaning and means of evidence that's up to them

A debate will not change evidence

 

[Ponder This]

What are you saying I said? Atheism is a position on belief, not believing, lacking belief in gods, reservation of belief in gods. saying "all atheists" in your statement renders it false, since there is no consensus between us. It's a label not a group.

The reasons for which Atheists label themselves under the same banner vary in a wide arc. Try next time to not mix the definition and the reason for the label together. They are separate from each other.

I was saying what it seemed to me that ChristineM was saying about atheism by saying "They say there is no evidence for a God or gods" which appears to indicate all atheists.

I point out that you regard these sorts of statements about atheists as easily resolved by a 'quick search'. So I'm actually pointing out the contradiction. Would you say ChristineM is wrong?

If it is fact that it rained yesterday then how you argue against fact?

Strawman, what have fridges to do do with it?

It is a fact that no evidence for god has ever been put forward.
Evidence: in 10000 years plus of god worship not one of the billions of believers has ever provided evidence of god or gods.

Please dont group me as a religious, i have looked at the evidence, in some cases examined it mathematically for example, e=mc2 shows the god of revelation 19:6 kjv is an impossibility.. Geologically, there is no evidence to support a world wide flood. Biologically, the Adam and Eve scenario is disproven by DNA. I won't go into the medical, military or cosmological evidences.

The bible is evidence of books. If people want to see it as confirmation bias with little regard for the meaning and means of evidence that's up to them

A debate will not change evidence

Argue against what fact? That it rained yesterday? Why would I argue against that?
An example of how lack of evidence is examined is not a strawman because you are making a claim about lack of evidence. The point isn't about fridges; it's about lack of evidence.

The fact would be that you reject the evidence people put forward and not that people haven't put forward what they see as evidence.

What do you mean 'group me as religious'?

I don't see the connection between Revelation 19:6 and E=mc^2, but you are free to imagine one.
I don't know of any evidence that confirms a world wide flood. Does that mean there was no flood of any sort? You are free to draw that conclusion, but it is a well-known fact that floods do occur and that there have been large floods in the past.
Biologically a mutation occurs in a single organism and is spread to the rest of the population via sexual reproduction. How that contradicts Adam and Eve (instead of confirming it)... I leave to you to manufacture.

Medical, Military, Cosmological... it would seem the Bible has been elevated (or demoted rather) to the status of a science textbook. Maybe you shall tally the flaws that confirm your rejection of the Bible as evidence. Should I believe that you have examined all the evidence simply because you rejected the Bible? I am amused.

A debate may concern evidence (what to accept and what to reject). This is the point I'm making. I never claimed that 'debate changes evidence'. That is a strawman.

 

[`mud]

Just one small point..."worldwide flood"...vs local torrents.
When one makes loose comparisons, one must be a little loose, isn't one?