Keep insisting your definition is the true one. You mad?
Edwards, Paul (2005) [1967]. "Atheism". In Donald M. Borchert.The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). MacMillan Reference USA (Gale). p. 359. ISBN 9780028657806. "On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than that it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes, too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious, and there are many other considerations which in certain contexts are generally agreed to constitute good grounds for rejecting an assertion."(page 175 in 1967 edition)-
-The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Nielsen, Kai (2011). "Atheism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2011-12-06. "Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons...: for an anthropomorphic God, the atheist rejects belief in God because it is false or probably false that there is a God; for a nonanthropomorphic God... because the concept of such a God is either meaningless, unintelligible, contradictory, incomprehensible, or incoherent; for the God portrayed by some modern or contemporary theologians or philosophers... because the concept of God in question is such that it merely masks an atheistic substance—e.g., “God” is just another name for love, or ... a symbolic term for moral ideals."-
-Encyclopedia Britannica
I'll let Hooter's post speak for itself.
As Christopher Hitchens was fond of saying, “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Does Atheism need evidence to keep from being dismissed?
The Claim Atheism Isn’t A Belief like Theism therefore needs no evidence, is a copout.
It is often said by atheists that atheism is not a positive position at all – a belief or worldview – but merely a disbelief in theism, a refusal to accept what the theist believes, and as such, there is no belief or position for there to be evidence for. Evidence is not needed for ‘non-positions’.
While the word ‘atheism’ has been used in something like this sense (see for example Antony Flew’s article ‘The Presumption of Atheism’), it is a highly non-standard use. Flew, a lifelong Atheist, now dead, died a theist. So understood, atheism would include agnosticism, since agnostics are also not theists. However, on the common understanding of atheism – no divine reality of any kind exists – atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Some insist that this non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ is the only possible sense, because a-theism means without theism. But if that were a good argument, the Space Shuttle would be an automobile, since it moves on its own (mobile=move, auto=by itself). Ditto for dogs and cats as I have argued. I also gave many sources to back me up.
Yet none of this really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence. As we saw, evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc. Therefore evidentialism says, with respect to the proposition God exists, that any attitude toward it will be rational or justified if and only if it fits one’s evidence. Now it is true that if one had no position whatever regarding the proposition God exists (perhaps because one has never entertained the thought), no evidence would be required for that non-position. But Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help.
This string uses ‘atheism’ in its standard sense.
Does Atheism need evidence in order to keep from being dismissed?
why do you keep quoting this stuff? It does you no favours. The same demand for evidence has first to be applied to the proposition of god existing, and the proposition fails because of lack of evidence. That failure is itself all the evidence that the atheist requires.
1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597
The demand for evidence is applied to everyone. You say there is no evidence for atheism. OK. That is what the topic is about.
Why do always insist on misrepresenting what people say. It's so varied and continuous it can't just be stupidity. Your strategy of insisting that evidence is needed for atheism is still nonsense, since atheism is not a proposition, it is a response. If you imaging ancient man walking along looking for explanations for life the universe and everything; the first thought he had was not, "there is no god." He imagined spirits, ghosts, life force etc in everything and these ideas gradually evolved into nasty little gods modelled on bronze age despots, like the god of the old testament, intemperate unfair, jealous, cruel and deeply dishonest. A typical early minor king. These were in turn gradually evolved into the modern versions of gods, but at no point in this process did anyone come up with a statement that any of this was untrue except as a response to the original proposition of a god. The idea that it might happen the other way round is ludicrous. I don't even have to say there is no god. All I need to say is "You have failed to provide any evidence for your god or gods; you have given me no reason to accept your proposition." Even someone who pursues the rather pointless philosophy of evidentialism can't take that any further.
