1712 replies to this topic

[Duchykins]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

[IronLife]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

[shadowhawk]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Sorry, you can't understand it. Over 20,000 people have tried. Sorry you don't know it is in English. Sense I took 4 years of Greek, I don't think I can help you.

[Duchykins]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

Edited by Duchykins, 15 February 2014 - 02:21 AM.

[IronLife]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

You said to rephrase his question in a coherent manner. Hence my reframing of the discussion in terms of an atheistic worldview based on naturalism, which is by far the dominant philosophical worldview held by most atheists. This particular worldview has to deal with the conundrum of infinite regression. Do I really have to put all of these pieces together for you or are you just purposefully being daft?

[Duchykins]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

You said to rephrase his question in a coherent manner. Hence my reframing of the discussion in terms of an atheistic worldview based on naturalism, which is by far the dominant philosophical worldview held by most atheists. This particular worldview has to deal with the conundrum of infinite regression. Do I really have to put all of these pieces together for you or are you just purposefully being daft?

Yes, you do. Because there is no good reason I should be expected to defend the views of others. Is it reasonable for me to expect SH to defend Islam, and then act like I win the argument when he refuses?


Assuming stereotypes is obnoxious shows that the assumer is lazy and/or unlearned.

ALWAYS address your arguments to the individual - not the monolithic label attached to them. If you are unsure of that person's views, ASK them specific questions that would help you get a better idea of what they actually believe. Everyone should be in the habit of doing this, with any subject.

[IronLife]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

You said to rephrase his question in a coherent manner. Hence my reframing of the discussion in terms of an atheistic worldview based on naturalism, which is by far the dominant philosophical worldview held by most atheists. This particular worldview has to deal with the conundrum of infinite regression. Do I really have to put all of these pieces together for you or are you just purposefully being daft?

Yes, you do. Because there is no good reason I should be expected to defend the views of others. Is it reasonable for me to expect SH to defend Islam, and then act like I win the argument when he refuses?


Assuming stereotypes is obnoxious shows that the assumer is lazy and/or unlearned.

ALWAYS address your arguments to the individual - not the monolithic label attached to them. If you are unsure of that person's views, ASK them specific questions that would help you get a better idea of what they actually believe. Everyone should be in the habit of doing this, with any subject.

Actually, it would be reasonable to expect SH and a Muslim to defend a theistic worldview, if you so chose. Furthermore, I never acted like I "won" an argument. I merely proposed an alternative way to discuss something relative to the OP. If it does not apply to you then do not discuss it. This is called common sense. You could have made an attempt at civility by saying, "I do not believe in philosophical naturalism," to which I would have inquired about your individual beliefs.

[Duchykins]

Before any atheist jumps in and makes a critical error, it would be prudent to point out now that there is no 'evidence for' naturalism. It is a philosophy. It is assumed. There is only so far back you can go with 'evidence' before you reach the point where an assumption must be made to begin reasoning with.

A lot of theists screw up here and mix up naturalism and empiricism. Hahaha.

[IronLife]

Before any atheist jumps in and makes a critical error, it would be prudent to point out now that there is no 'evidence for' naturalism. It is a philosophy. It is assumed. There is only so far back you can go with 'evidence' before you reach the point where an assumption must be made to begin reasoning with.

A lot of theists screw up here and mix up naturalism and empiricism. Hahaha.

Another "God Delusion" puppet, eh? el-oh-el. Carry on.

[Duchykins]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

You said to rephrase his question in a coherent manner. Hence my reframing of the discussion in terms of an atheistic worldview based on naturalism, which is by far the dominant philosophical worldview held by most atheists. This particular worldview has to deal with the conundrum of infinite regression. Do I really have to put all of these pieces together for you or are you just purposefully being daft?

Yes, you do. Because there is no good reason I should be expected to defend the views of others. Is it reasonable for me to expect SH to defend Islam, and then act like I win the argument when he refuses?


Assuming stereotypes is obnoxious shows that the assumer is lazy and/or unlearned.

ALWAYS address your arguments to the individual - not the monolithic label attached to them. If you are unsure of that person's views, ASK them specific questions that would help you get a better idea of what they actually believe. Everyone should be in the habit of doing this, with any subject.

Actually, it would be reasonable to expect SH and a Muslim to defend a theistic worldview, if you so chose. Furthermore, I never acted like I "won" an argument. I merely proposed an alternative way to discuss something relative to the OP. If it does not apply to you then do not discuss it. This is called common sense. You could have made an attempt at civility by saying, "I do not believe in philosophical naturalism," to which I would have inquired about your individual beliefs.

Why did you add "and a Muslim"? Ugh.

I was speaking of SH specifically. Nor was I speaking of you about 'win' attitude. SH has that. SH asked me to defend his idea of atheism by arguing for evidence supporting it. I am allowed to point out his stupidity instead of remaining silent as though my own position is defenseless.

I already told SH not to take that approach with me in previous days. Those were the civil times. He chose to be obtuse and stereotype me. Therefore my tone changed. You chose to butt in and shoulder his question as though it is an intelligent query. You're in no position to take any of this personally.

Before any atheist jumps in and makes a critical error, it would be prudent to point out now that there is no 'evidence for' naturalism. It is a philosophy. It is assumed. There is only so far back you can go with 'evidence' before you reach the point where an assumption must be made to begin reasoning with.

A lot of theists screw up here and mix up naturalism and empiricism. Hahaha.

Another "God Delusion" puppet, eh? el-oh-el. Carry on.

You talking about ole Dick Dawkins' followers? I call him Dick because he's a dick.

Keep stereotyping.

Should I assume you're some young earth creationist, gay bashing, 'liberal' hating fundie from the Bible belt? I can do that if you want. For fun, of course.

[IronLife]

[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392433117' post='643724']
[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392432412' post='643718']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392432108' post='643715']
[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392431542' post='643712']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392430773' post='643707']
[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392350998' post='643492']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392342545' post='643463'][quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1392332875' post='643403']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392329724' post='643387']
An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.
[/quote]

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html
[/quote]

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.[/quote]Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.
[/quote]


Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?
[/quote]You said to rephrase his question in a coherent manner. Hence my reframing of the discussion in terms of an atheistic worldview based on naturalism, which is by far the dominant philosophical worldview held by most atheists. This particular worldview has to deal with the conundrum of infinite regression. Do I really have to put all of these pieces together for you or are you just purposefully being daft?
[/quote]

Yes, you do. Because there is no good reason I should be expected to defend the views of others. Is it reasonable for me to expect SH to defend Islam, and then act like I win the argument when he refuses?


Assuming stereotypes is obnoxious shows that the assumer is lazy and/or unlearned.

ALWAYS address your arguments to the individual - not the monolithic label attached to them. If you are unsure of that person's views, ASK them specific questions that would help you get a better idea of what they actually believe. Everyone should be in the habit of doing this, with any subject.
[/quote]Actually, it would be reasonable to expect SH and a Muslim to defend a theistic worldview, if you so chose. Furthermore, I never acted like I "won" an argument. I merely proposed an alternative way to discuss something relative to the OP. If it does not apply to you then do not discuss it. This is called common sense. You could have made an attempt at civility by saying, "I do not believe in philosophical naturalism," to which I would have inquired about your individual beliefs.
[/quote]

Why did you add "and a Muslim"? Ugh.

I was speaking of SH specifically. Nor was I speaking of you about 'win' attitude. SH has that. SH asked me to defend his idea of atheism by arguing for evidence supporting it. I am allowed to point out his stupidity instead of remaining silent as though my own position is defenseless.

I already told SH not to take that approach with me in previous days. Those were the civil times. He chose to be obtuse and stereotype me. Therefore my tone changed. You chose to butt in and shoulder his question as though it is an intelligent query. You're in no position to take any of this personally.
[/quote]
I said "and a Muslim" because most Muslims and Christians share a similar [classical] theistic philosophy with regard to causality and such. It seemed like you were quoting me since you did not cipher off his post and my own; therefore, I responded as though it were directed toward me. I butted in because the two of you have not moved the ball forward. I did not try to defend SH, rather I wanted to advance the discussion beyond the ongoing banter.

[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392433290' post='643724']
[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392432412' post='643718']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392432108' post='643715']
[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392431542' post='643712']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392430773' post='643707']
[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392350998' post='643492']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392342545' post='643463'][quote name='shadowhawk' timestamp='1392332875' post='643403']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392329724' post='643387']
An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.
[/quote]

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html
[/quote]

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.[/quote]Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.
[/quote]


Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?
[/quote]You said to rephrase his question in a coherent manner. Hence my reframing of the discussion in terms of an atheistic worldview based on naturalism, which is by far the dominant philosophical worldview held by most atheists. This particular worldview has to deal with the conundrum of infinite regression. Do I really have to put all of these pieces together for you or are you just purposefully being daft?
[/quote]

Yes, you do. Because there is no good reason I should be expected to defend the views of others. Is it reasonable for me to expect SH to defend Islam, and then act like I win the argument when he refuses?


Assuming stereotypes is obnoxious shows that the assumer is lazy and/or unlearned.

ALWAYS address your arguments to the individual - not the monolithic label attached to them. If you are unsure of that person's views, ASK them specific questions that would help you get a better idea of what they actually believe. Everyone should be in the habit of doing this, with any subject.
[/quote]Actually, it would be reasonable to expect SH and a Muslim to defend a theistic worldview, if you so chose. Furthermore, I never acted like I "won" an argument. I merely proposed an alternative way to discuss something relative to the OP. If it does not apply to you then do not discuss it. This is called common sense. You could have made an attempt at civility by saying, "I do not believe in philosophical naturalism," to which I would have inquired about your individual beliefs.
[/quote]

Why did you add "and a Muslim"? Ugh.

I was speaking of SH specifically. Nor was I speaking of you about 'win' attitude. SH has that. SH asked me to defend his idea of atheism by arguing for evidence supporting it. I am allowed to point out his stupidity instead of remaining silent as though my own position is defenseless.

I already told SH not to take that approach with me in previous days. Those were the civil times. He chose to be obtuse and stereotype me. Therefore my tone changed. You chose to butt in and shoulder his question as though it is an intelligent query. You're in no position to take any of this personally.

[quote name='IronLife' timestamp='1392432797' post='643723']
[quote name='Duchykins' timestamp='1392432671' post='643721']
Before any atheist jumps in and makes a critical error, it would be prudent to point out now that there is no 'evidence for' naturalism. It is a philosophy. It is assumed. There is only so far back you can go with 'evidence' before you reach the point where an assumption must be made to begin reasoning with.

A lot of theists screw up here and mix up naturalism and empiricism. Hahaha.
[/quote]
Another "God Delusion" puppet, eh? el-oh-el. Carry on.
[/quote]


You talking about ole Dick Dawkins' followers? I call him Dick because he's a dick.

Keep stereotyping.

Should I assume you're some young earth creationist, gay bashing, 'liberal' hating fundie from the Bible belt? I can do that if you want. For fun, of course.
[/quote]
It is, of course, with regard to your tone that I made the reference to Dawkins, not philosophical affinity.

[Duchykins]

That's fair enough.

[johnross47]

The way you refer to naturalism, IronLife, suggests that you see it as problematic. I don't find it difficult at all. I just checked back on definitions and I would certainly regard myself as a naturalist, until someone persuades me otherwise.I don't see infinite regression as any more of a problem for naturalists than it is for theists. I am quite happy to say, "at this point we reach the end of our current knowledge", rather than claim to know that the answer is a god (or several) as theists do. The appearance of an infinite regression, as far as I am concerned is just a marker for the end of our current information.

[sthira]

The way you refer to naturalism, IronLife, suggests that you see it as problematic. I don't find it difficult at all. I just checked back on definitions and I would certainly regard myself as a naturalist, until someone persuades me otherwise.I don't see infinite regression as any more of a problem for naturalists than it is for theists. I am quite happy to say, "at this point we reach the end of our current knowledge", rather than claim to know that the answer is a god (or several) as theists do. The appearance of an infinite regression, as far as I am concerned is just a marker for the end of our current information.

Yes, and I continue to remain fascinated about why the concept of ignorance is so scary difficult for people to grasp. In my personal dealings when I don't know something or can't do something, I just say I don't know or I can't. Why lie? Why not defer to others who might have more information. Why pretend? Expanding upon that theme, when it comes to these giant mysteries of the universe of which humanity is ignorant why pretend to know what we don't? Do we pretend to know what we don't know out of a sense of fear? Is it pride? If it's faith -- that's cool, have faith in god if it helps you to live a better life -- but why try to dress up faith as if faith is on an objective level with the scientific method?

[johnross47]

It's part of what I find interesting about these debates; what makes the faithful tick? Why do they find faith such an attractive option, when it is tantamount to an admission that they can't prove their position. Saying that faith is required is the same as saying "I cling to irrational beliefs," yet they shout it from the rooftops as if faith was something spectacularly wonderful that makes them superior to the rest of us doomed mortals. They actually patronise rational people, as can be seen on this forum, over and over again.

[sthira]

It's part of what I find interesting about these debates; what makes the faithful tick? Why do they find faith such an attractive option, when it is tantamount to an admission that they can't prove their position. Saying that faith is required is the same as saying "I cling to irrational beliefs," yet they shout it from the rooftops as if faith was something spectacularly wonderful that makes them superior to the rest of us doomed mortals. They actually patronise rational people, as can be seen on this forum, over and over again.

We're all faithful, as shawdowhawk has reiterated.  Respect the truth that science, too, is based upon faith.  That is, science rests upon some basic presuppositions that when delved into appear in flux.  Yet the faith upon which science rests has more grounds in objective reality.  We're able to design cool stuff to improve lives based upon "the science."  If religion, too, makes people's lives happier, then three cheers for religion.  But often religious faith appears to divide people and halt progress.  Scientists fall victim to conceit and dishonesty, too, obviously, but the scientific inquiry -- practiced, checked, double-checked, reverified again and again with similar outcomes -- shall remain dominant until we unfold better methods to investigate reality.

Our educated forefathers have been repeating this for centuries: down with religion, up with science.  It'll stay that way.

[johnross47]

It's the checking, double-checking, refining, redefining etc. that's makes science the more effective a way of dealing with the world. Propose a hypothesis - do observations and experiments to check predictions arising from the hypothesis - refine it - repeat - if the predictions are verified make some more on the basis of the results and repeat the process. If they are not verified start again. Religion on the other hand just says something and sticks with it. A long time after science has shown the view to be wrong they grudgingly change it, sometimes. Fundies don't change their views, they deny the evidence. I know which side I'm on. I prefer the system that gave us sticky plasters and sticky tape, antibiotics, TV, rockets that go into what is really "above the sky", accurate clocks, the internet etc. Religion on the other hand has given a lot of ways for very creepy people to control others and extra excuses for going to war or ostracising non-members. Some users of their services get reassurance and support but many don't. It makes some people happier but it also makes many people much more miserable, or dead. On the down side of science, it has also given us guns and bombs, toxic chemicals in our food and global warming, though some of that is down to religiously inspired overpopulation. On the plus side for science, it gives us the evidence for global warming and techniques for mitigation. It can change its mind.

[shadowhawk]

Science does not = evidence for atheism. Prove Atheism by Science.

[johnross47]

Science does not = evidence for atheism. Prove Atheism by Science.

I wouldn't attempt to prove atheism by any means, any more than I would attempt to prove or disprove god(s). I might challenge any supposed proofs presented, but that is not the same thing.

[shadowhawk]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

I have given it in the first post of this topic.

Science does not = evidence for atheism. Prove Atheism by Science.

I wouldn't attempt to prove atheism by any means, any more than I would attempt to prove or disprove god(s). I might challenge any supposed proofs presented, but that is not the same thing.

I forgot, I am talking to an evangelist of nothing. No evidence necessary. Science does not support Atheism.

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 February 2014 - 10:18 PM.

[shadowhawk]

It's part of what I find interesting about these debates; what makes the faithful tick? Why do they find faith such an attractive option, when it is tantamount to an admission that they can't prove their position. Saying that faith is required is the same as saying "I cling to irrational beliefs," yet they shout it from the rooftops as if faith was something spectacularly wonderful that makes them superior to the rest of us doomed mortals. They actually patronise rational people, as can be seen on this forum, over and over again.

We're all faithful, as shawdowhawk has reiterated. Respect the truth that science, too, is based upon faith. That is, science rests upon some basic presuppositions that when delved into appear in flux. Yet the faith upon which science rests has more grounds in objective reality. We're able to design cool stuff to improve lives based upon "the science." If religion, too, makes people's lives happier, then three cheers for religion. But often religious faith appears to divide people and halt progress. Scientists fall victim to conceit and dishonesty, too, obviously, but the scientific inquiry -- practiced, checked, double-checked, reverified again and again with similar outcomes -- shall remain dominant until we unfold better methods to investigate reality.

Our educated forefathers have been repeating this for centuries: down with religion, up with science. It'll stay that way.

We could argue this, but the topic is about evidence for Atheism. Science does not provide evidence for Atheism.

[johnross47]

"We could argue this, but the topic is about evidence for Atheism. Science does not provide evidence for Atheism."

It has been pointed out over and over that no evidence is needed for atheism. It isn't a sensible demand. You might as well say "If you can't prove that fairies don't exist I will insist that your disbelief is irrational, and that they do exist." This of course could be applied to all and any made up entities.

[shadowhawk]

"We could argue this, but the topic is about evidence for Atheism. Science does not provide evidence for Atheism."

It has been pointed out over and over that no evidence is needed for atheism. It isn't a sensible demand. You might as well say "If you can't prove that fairies don't exist I will insist that your disbelief is irrational, and that they do exist." This of course could be applied to all and any made up entities.

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504130
http://www.longecity...180#entry509183
http://www.longecity...300#entry512746
IS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE RATIONAL IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE? IS ATHEISM RATIONAL?
IS ATHEISM MADE UP?

[johnross47]

You can only maintain this dishonest position by denying others the right to have their own histories. I am simply saying I see no reason to agree with the gods that others propose. Nobody has yet produced good reasons for me to believe their stories, so I don't. No evidence is required for my position. The demand is dishonest. The silly attempts to suggest that this is logically invalid as a position are just that, silly. They are also coercive and dishonest.

[shadowhawk]

You can only maintain this dishonest position by denying others the right to have their own histories. I am simply saying I see no reason to agree with the gods that others propose. Nobody has yet produced good reasons for me to believe their stories, so I don't. No evidence is required for my position. The demand is dishonest. The silly attempts to suggest that this is logically invalid as a position are just that, silly. They are also coercive and dishonest.

You have committed a Red Herring logical error here. This is not the topic and you ignored my q questions.

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352

4. The Burden of Proof Is not on the Atheist because they don’t believe in anything?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504130
http://www.longecity...180#entry509183
http://www.longecity...300#entry512746
IS ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE RATIONAL IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE? IS ATHEISM RATIONAL?
IS ATHEISM MADE UP?

[Duchykins]

An atheist only has a burden to prove the universal negative if he/she makes a negative statement like 'there are no gods' or 'your god does not exist'.

Telling a theist who is trying very hard to convince someone that their god exists "I don't believe you" is not a universal negative.

Telling that atheist they have to prove the negative is a fat ass straw man.

Straw Man? Fat ass no less. I take this to mean there is no evidence for Atheism and my dog is an atheist. Do you have evidence? IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM? Your answer seems to be "no."

Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
http://www.nizkor.or.../straw-man.html

"Evidence for atheism" is not a coherent phrase.

Please rephrase in English.

Evidence for philosophical naturalism or materialism. One prime issue being causality and infinite regression.

Naturalism is not atheism. It is naturalism. That's why it's called 'naturalism' instead of 'atheism'. Not all gods are defined as supernatural, some gods are defined as natural.

Infinite regress is not atheism. It is infinite regress. That's why it's called 'infinite regress' instead of 'atheism'.

I'm wondering what SH thinks the definition of atheism is? Are you reading this, SH?

I have given it in the first post of this topic.

Science does not = evidence for atheism. Prove Atheism by Science.

I wouldn't attempt to prove atheism by any means, any more than I would attempt to prove or disprove god(s). I might challenge any supposed proofs presented, but that is not the same thing.

I forgot, I am talking to an evangelist of nothing. No evidence necessary. Science does not support Atheism.

Of course science doesn't support atheism, genius. It doesn't support theism either. Science cannot have any say in matters of the supernatural because the existence of the supernatural is not recognized by the philosophy the scientific method is contructed upon. The only time science and the supernatural can meet is when someone claims a supernatural something interacted with the natural universe. Anything that can produce effects in the natural universe can be measured by scientific means. That's all.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: Of course science doesn't support atheism, genius. It doesn't support theism either. Science cannot have any say in matters of the supernatural because the existence of the supernatural is not recognized by the philosophy the scientific method is contructed upon. The only time science and the supernatural can meet is when someone claims a supernatural something interacted with the natural universe. Anything that can produce effects in the natural universe can be measured by scientific means. That's all.

ShadowHawk: I agree with most of this but the topic is Atheism and there is no scientific evidence for it. Typical red herring. You left a lot out but can't fault you for that.

[johnross47]

Duchykins: Of course science doesn't support atheism, genius. It doesn't support theism either. Science cannot have any say in matters of the supernatural because the existence of the supernatural is not recognized by the philosophy the scientific method is contructed upon. The only time science and the supernatural can meet is when someone claims a supernatural something interacted with the natural universe. Anything that can produce effects in the natural universe can be measured by scientific means. That's all.

ShadowHawk: I agree with most of this but the topic is Atheism and there is no scientific evidence for it. Typical red herring. You left a lot out but can't fault you for that.

The James Randi Foundation's prize has never been successfully claimed.

http://www.randi.org...dc-changes.html

Nobody has yet produced any proof of anything supernatural; personally I would say, if it exists it is natural.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: Of course science doesn't support atheism, genius. It doesn't support theism either. Science cannot have any say in matters of the supernatural because the existence of the supernatural is not recognized by the philosophy the scientific method is contructed upon. The only time science and the supernatural can meet is when someone claims a supernatural something interacted with the natural universe. Anything that can produce effects in the natural universe can be measured by scientific means. That's all.

ShadowHawk: I agree with most of this but the topic is Atheism and there is no scientific evidence for it. Typical red herring. You left a lot out but can't fault you for that.

The James Randi Foundation's prize has never been successfully claimed.

http://www.randi.org...dc-changes.html

Nobody has yet produced any proof of anything supernatural; personally I would say, if it exists it is natural.

Change the topic. Over and again.

Not proof, evidence for atheism. What would you accept as proof?

[johnross47]

Duchykins: Of course science doesn't support atheism, genius. It doesn't support theism either. Science cannot have any say in matters of the supernatural because the existence of the supernatural is not recognized by the philosophy the scientific method is contructed upon. The only time science and the supernatural can meet is when someone claims a supernatural something interacted with the natural universe. Anything that can produce effects in the natural universe can be measured by scientific means. That's all.

ShadowHawk: I agree with most of this but the topic is Atheism and there is no scientific evidence for it. Typical red herring. You left a lot out but can't fault you for that.

The James Randi Foundation's prize has never been successfully claimed.

http://www.randi.org...dc-changes.html

Nobody has yet produced any proof of anything supernatural; personally I would say, if it exists it is natural.

Change the topic. Over and again.



Not proof, evidence for atheism. What would you accept as proof?

Nobody else here would agree with your claim that atheism needs proof. If somebody tells me that the moon is made of cheese, and I say I don't believe them because it is inconsistent with everything else we know about the universe and no evidence has been presented for it, that does not require proof. It is the original cheese claim that needs support. Same with gods.