1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: 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.

Shadowhawk: So you are admitting there is no evidence for your irrational belief in Gods absence. There is no evidence. By the way there is evidence the moon is not made of cheese and I can offer evidence for the negative. I can prove a negative. There is no cheese on the moon. There is no car on the road. It is safe to walk across the street. All I have to do is show something is contradictory to the evidence to prove a negative.

[Duchykins]

johnross47: 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.

Shadowhawk: So you are admitting there is no evidence for your irrational belief in Gods absence. There is no evidence. By the way there is evidence the moon is not made of cheese and I can offer evidence for the negative. I can prove a negative. There is no cheese on the moon. There is no car on the road. It is safe to walk across the street. All I have to do is show something is contradictory to the evidence to prove a negative.

Those are negatives but not universal negatives, which is a very different story.

You cannot prove the universal negative that god of Zoroastrianism does not exist - unless you find a contradiction in the description/definition of that particular god and construct a valid proof. Logical proofs are the only proofs that can be had for universal negatives.

Such proofs can be produced and have been produced, but of course merely brushed aside by theists who understand fuck all about proving negatives. And the most common argument against such proofs is "my god is above logic" or "logic does not apply to my god" -- both of which are profoundly stupid and ignorant statements because they are arguing that the law of identity does not apply to their definition god, making any intelligible discussion or conception of their god impossible.

Edited by Duchykins, 21 February 2014 - 11:27 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I suppose Atheists want us to believe Atheism is true. They believe theism is not true and for most it is simply an escape mechanism to claim something is true and at the same time to insist they have to give no reasons for their belief. They believe but have to give no reasons for it. Let a theist try that. Who says there is no burden of proof, when you expect me to believe something?

What evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions of Atheism?. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something I have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Here are a few questions that an atheist could give evidence for.
1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
8.How do we account for self-awareness?
9.How is free will possible in a material universe?
10.How do we account for conscience?
11.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
12.Why does suffering matter?
13.Why do human beings matter?
14.Why care about justice?
15.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
16.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
17.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
18.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church
I could go on but uou get my point.

http://wgo onww.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

[johnross47]

I suppose Atheists want us to believe Atheism is true. They believe theism is not true and for most it is simply an escape mechanism to claim something is true and at the same time to insist they have to give no reasons for their belief. They believe but have to give no reasons for it. Let a theist try that. Who says there is no burden of proof, when you expect me to believe something?

What evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions of Atheism?. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something I have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Here are a few questions that an atheist could give evidence for.
1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
8.How do we account for self-awareness?
9.How is free will possible in a material universe?
10.How do we account for conscience?
11.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
12.Why does suffering matter?
13.Why do human beings matter?
14.Why care about justice?
15.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
16.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
17.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
18.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church
I could go on but uou get my point.

http://wgo onww.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T76Rp6pS4I

Atheist don't believe there is no god. (some do, but I and many others don't) They don't believe there is any evidence for a god. This is the form of atheism close to agnosticism.

The 18 point list is silly and dishonest, it is just piling it high again. Some of these questions have been answered before but you choose to pretend otherwise. That is your problem. I don't feel under any obligation to constantly repeat answers you will ignore.

Evolution has provided answers for some of these points. Some are not yet known. Others are statements of religious belief as if they were facts. Others,ie irreducible complexity, are assertions in the form of questions, of ideas that have already been disproved.
The questions that actually interest me are 7,8,9. The questions after that depend to some extent on the explanation of 7,8,9. Consciousness/awareness/free will is something I have spent a lot of time on. Would it be worth the effort of explaining my point of view, or would it just be met by the usual casual unsupported dismissal?

Edited by johnross47, 23 February 2014 - 01:12 PM.

[Duchykins]

I suppose Atheists want us to believe Atheism is true. They believe theism is not true and for most it is simply an escape mechanism to claim something is true and at the same time to insist they have to give no reasons for their belief. They believe but have to give no reasons for it. Let a theist try that. Who says there is no burden of proof, when you expect me to believe something?

What evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions of Atheism?. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something I have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Here are a few questions that an atheist could give evidence for.
1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
8.How do we account for self-awareness?
9.How is free will possible in a material universe?
10.How do we account for conscience?
11.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
12.Why does suffering matter?
13.Why do human beings matter?
14.Why care about justice?
15.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
16.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
17.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
18.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church
I could go on but uou get my point.

http://wgo onww.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T76Rp6pS4I

You say that as if Christians have 'evidence' for all that too, hahah.

However I didn't see anything on that list that pertains to "Atheism"(sic)

Christians don't have 'evidence' to answer similar questions of Islamic mythology either.

Your broken reasoning is hilarious.



#1 What caused the universe to exist?

The proper answer from anyone is "I don't know". Yes, there are promising hypotheses, but we don't know enough yet. Christians, other theists, don't have 'evidence' for the cause of the universe, they have theological doctrine and deep-seated beliefs, and "just so because I say so" pseudoanswers. It's not evidence to say "god made the universe".


#2 What explains the fine-tuning of the universe?

There are two different meanings of "fine-tuned" hanging around. One is scientific and is a reference to the model we built of the universe, which requires fine tuning by us in order to reflect what we observe. This happens because our model is incomplete. The other use of "fine-tuning" is nonscientific and is a reference to the perception *some* people have of the universe as a whole.



#3 Why is the universe rational?

Who said the universe is rational? What is rational supposed to mean in this context?




#4 How did DNA and amino acids arise?

Atheist: natural means Theist: supernatural means. Wow, I guess theists win that one!



#5 Where did the genetic code come from?

Atheist: natural means Theist: supernatural means. You sure burned another atheist on that one!



#6 How did irreducibly complex chains evolve?

Irreducibly complex systems arise through ordinary evolutionary mechanisms; there is nothing special about them but a creationist's lack of knowledge, imagination, and determination to believe they are right no matter what.



#7 How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessecity?

Are humans the only biological creatures capable of independent thought?



#8 How do we account for self-awareness?

Sensory experience is a factor here. It is not agreed upon that humans are the only self-aware biological creatures on this planet. However, how do theists account for their god's purported self-awarenes?



#9 How is free will possible in a material universe?

The definition of "free will" is not agreed upon, nor is its existence.



#10 How do we account for conscience?

If by "conscience" you mean a moral code instilled in humans, there is ample evidence and valid reasoning as to how "morality" or a sense of fairness arises in ALL social mammals - it is a requirement any social group must fulfill if the group is to work/live cooperatively and thrive as whole.


#11 On what basis can we make moral judgments?

It is dishonest to ask questions pertaining to ethics and philosophy that not even theists agree on the answers to. But we can ask ourselves, on what basis do theists judge their god to be moral? On what basis do religionists judge that their religions contain a code of ethics worthy of adhering to? The true answer to question #11 lies in there.



#12 Why does suffering matter?

Does suffering matter in Christianity? To whom? I haven't seen any evidence that Christian doctrine contains consistent reasoning about suffering; sometimes it matters, often it doesn't. There is no reason to be a hypocrite and ask this of atheists, who will have different beliefs and answers. My personal belief: it matters to us because we're alive, we can suffer, and suffering is not conducive to our well-being.



#13 Why do human beings matter?

Because we say so. Lol!



#14 Why care about justice?

Our innate sense of fairness is satisfied by the execution of justice and the correction of perceived wrongs. This is tied into why we social mammals must form a code of behavior (morality) in order for the group to thrive (not merely survive).


#15 How do we account for belief in the supernatural?

Intuitive reasoning. Lack of knowledge about natural phenomena, mystery. (Loss of mystery is why so many theists feel their beliefs are threatened by the knowledge accumuating in biology and cosmology) The common need for some kind of 'answer' in a knowledge gap; most of us have great fear of the unknown. Emotional soothing. The great need of social mammals to have social contact; innate fear of isolation and aloneness. Protective blanket. Lots of things, there are innumerable reasons people have different supernatural beliefs.


#16 How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

Finally, a question that actually has some relevance to atheism. And the answer is: we don't know.



#17 How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

If the 'dead' interacted with us in some way to make their existence known and irrefutable.


#18 What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances, and growth of the church?

What empty tomb? What resurrection appearances? The growth of what church? How did other religions previously spead themselves other than conquest and breeding? Are popular ideas true because they are popular?


Why are all atheists evidentialists? This is news to me. Did you recently google evidentialism after reading a post where I mentioned it?

Why does your god exist?

What is your god's purpose in existence? Who/what decided it?

What is the definition of morality?

Have you judged your god to be moral, if so, why? On what basis did you make this judgment?

When did this morality develop, if your previous answer was yes?

Can morality develop in a social vaccuum?

Can self-awareness develop in a social vaccuum?

Why do theists tend to practice relativistic moral reasoning? Why then do so many turn around and piss on relativism? Why are two mutually exclusive standards of ethics (one for humans, one for gods) frequently encouraged in theistic doctrine?

Why do atheists tend to practice universal/objective moral reasoning in spite of believing themselves moral relativists? Why do atheists tend to judge the purported actions of gods, characters in religion, and modern humans by one standard of ethics?

Why do so many religionists seem to worship death? Is the afterlife (with god) ideal or more important than this life? If so, why do we value this life so much, if at all? Do children 'go to god' when they die, that the absolute best thing that could ever happen to any person? If so, why don't we kill childern so they can experience that wonderful life as soon as possible? If we are punished for killing children, then why isn't the greatest sacrifice a person could make would be to dedicate their lives to giving the gift of death to children and freeing them from this inferior mortal life? But perhaps none of this applies, maybe deceased children 'go' elsewhere when they die? Do you personally have different or unconventional beliefs about the afterlife?

Edited by Duchykins, 23 February 2014 - 05:52 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I suppose Atheists want us to believe Atheism is true. They believe theism is not true and for most it is simply an escape mechanism to claim something is true and at the same time to insist they have to give no reasons for their belief. They believe but have to give no reasons for it. Let a theist try that. Who says there is no burden of proof, when you expect me to believe something?

What evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions of Atheism?. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something I have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Here are a few questions that an atheist could give evidence for.
1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
8.How do we account for self-awareness?
9.How is free will possible in a material universe?
10.How do we account for conscience?
11.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
12.Why does suffering matter?
13.Why do human beings matter?
14.Why care about justice?
15.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
16.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
17.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
18.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church
I could go on but uou get my point.

http://wgo onww.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T76Rp6pS4I

You say that as if Christians have 'evidence' for all that too, hahah.

However I didn't see anything on that list that pertains to "Atheism"(sic)

Christians don't have 'evidence' to answer similar questions of Islamic mythology either.

Your broken reasoning is hilarious.



#1 What caused the universe to exist?

The proper answer from anyone is "I don't know". Yes, there are promising hypotheses, but we don't know enough yet. Christians, other theists, don't have 'evidence' for the cause of the universe, they have theological doctrine and deep-seated beliefs, and "just so because I say so" pseudoanswers. It's not evidence to say "god made the universe".


#2 What explains the fine-tuning of the universe?

There are two different meanings of "fine-tuned" hanging around. One is scientific and is a reference to the model we built of the universe, which requires fine tuning by us in order to reflect what we observe. This happens because our model is incomplete. The other use of "fine-tuning" is nonscientific and is a reference to the perception *some* people have of the universe as a whole.



#3 Why is the universe rational?

Who said the universe is rational? What is rational supposed to mean in this context?




#4 How did DNA and amino acids arise?

Atheist: natural means Theist: supernatural means. Wow, I guess theists win that one!



#5 Where did the genetic code come from?

Atheist: natural means Theist: supernatural means. You sure burned another atheist on that one!



#6 How did irreducibly complex chains evolve?

Irreducibly complex systems arise through ordinary evolutionary mechanisms; there is nothing special about them but a creationist's lack of knowledge, imagination, and determination to believe they are right no matter what.



#7 How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessecity?

Are humans the only biological creatures capable of independent thought?



#8 How do we account for self-awareness?

Sensory experience is a factor here. It is not agreed upon that humans are the only self-aware biological creatures on this planet. However, how do theists account for their god's purported self-awarenes?



#9 How is free will possible in a material universe?

The definition of "free will" is not agreed upon, nor is its existence.



#10 How do we account for conscience?

If by "conscience" you mean a moral code instilled in humans, there is ample evidence and valid reasoning as to how "morality" or a sense of fairness arises in ALL social mammals - it is a requirement any social group must fulfill if the group is to work/live cooperatively and thrive as whole.


#11 On what basis can we make moral judgments?

It is dishonest to ask questions pertaining to ethics and philosophy that not even theists agree on the answers to. But we can ask ourselves, on what basis do theists judge their god to be moral? On what basis do religionists judge that their religions contain a code of ethics worthy of adhering to? The true answer to question #11 lies in there.



#12 Why does suffering matter?

Does suffering matter in Christianity? To whom? I haven't seen any evidence that Christian doctrine contains consistent reasoning about suffering; sometimes it matters, often it doesn't. There is no reason to be a hypocrite and ask this of atheists, who will have different beliefs and answers. My personal belief: it matters to us because we're alive, we can suffer, and suffering is not conducive to our well-being.



#13 Why do human beings matter?

Because we say so. Lol!



#14 Why care about justice?

Our innate sense of fairness is satisfied by the execution of justice and the correction of perceived wrongs. This is tied into why we social mammals must form a code of behavior (morality) in order for the group to thrive (not merely survive).


#15 How do we account for belief in the supernatural?

Intuitive reasoning. Lack of knowledge about natural phenomena, mystery. (Loss of mystery is why so many theists feel their beliefs are threatened by the knowledge accumuating in biology and cosmology) The common need for some kind of 'answer' in a knowledge gap; most of us have great fear of the unknown. Emotional soothing. The great need of social mammals to have social contact; innate fear of isolation and aloneness. Protective blanket. Lots of things, there are innumerable reasons people have different supernatural beliefs.


#16 How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

Finally, a question that actually has some relevance to atheism. And the answer is: we don't know.



#17 How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

If the 'dead' interacted with us in some way to make their existence known and irrefutable.


#18 What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances, and growth of the church?

What empty tomb? What resurrection appearances? The growth of what church? How did other religions previously spead themselves other than conquest and breeding? Are popular ideas true because they are popular?


Why are all atheists evidentialists? This is news to me. Did you recently google evidentialism after reading a post where I mentioned it?

Why does your god exist?

What is your god's purpose in existence? Who/what decided it?

What is the definition of morality?

Have you judged your god to be moral, if so, why? On what basis did you make this judgment?

When did this morality develop, if your previous answer was yes?

Can morality develop in a social vaccuum?

Can self-awareness develop in a social vaccuum?

Why do theists tend to practice relativistic moral reasoning? Why then do so many turn around and piss on relativism? Why are two mutually exclusive standards of ethics (one for humans, one for gods) frequently encouraged in theistic doctrine?

Why do atheists tend to practice universal/objective moral reasoning in spite of believing themselves moral relativists? Why do atheists tend to judge the purported actions of gods, characters in religion, and modern humans by one standard of ethics?

Why do so many religionists seem to worship death? Is the afterlife (with god) ideal or more important than this life? If so, why do we value this life so much, if at all? Do children 'go to god' when they die, that the absolute best thing that could ever happen to any person? If so, why don't we kill childern so they can experience that wonderful life as soon as possible? If we are punished for killing children, then why isn't the greatest sacrifice a person could make would be to dedicate their lives to giving the gift of death to children and freeing them from this inferior mortal life? But perhaps none of this applies, maybe deceased children 'go' elsewhere when they die? Do you personally have different or unconventional beliefs about the afterlife?

The topic is, IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM???

So this is your evidence?

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 February 2014 - 12:53 AM.

[Duchykins]

I suppose Atheists want us to believe Atheism is true. They believe theism is not true and for most it is simply an escape mechanism to claim something is true and at the same time to insist they have to give no reasons for their belief. They believe but have to give no reasons for it. Let a theist try that. Who says there is no burden of proof, when you expect me to believe something?

What evidence is required to rationally believe any of the positions of Atheism?. Suppose for example that someone claims that there are no electrons, and that person bears the burden of proof. It’s not the case that so long as their burden hasn’t been discharged people can rationally believe that electrons exist without evidence. On the contrary, as evidentialism says, evidence is required for the belief to be justified even if there is no burden to defend the belief. This means that even if the burden of proof never falls on the atheist in disputes with theists (something I have so far found no reason to believe), it does not follow from that fact that atheists can rationally believe without evidence that there is no God or other divine reality. Consequently, the concept of burden of proof is also of no use to the Atheists in avoiding the demands of evidentialism.

Here are a few questions that an atheist could give evidence for.
1.What caused the universe to exist?
2.What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3.Why is the universe rational?
4.How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5.Where did the genetic code come from?
6.How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7.How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
8.How do we account for self-awareness?
9.How is free will possible in a material universe?
10.How do we account for conscience?
11.On what basis can we make moral judgements?
12.Why does suffering matter?
13.Why do human beings matter?
14.Why care about justice?
15.How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
16.How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
17.How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
18.What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church
I could go on but uou get my point.

http://wgo onww.leaderu.com/truth/1truth11.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T76Rp6pS4I

You say that as if Christians have 'evidence' for all that too, hahah.

However I didn't see anything on that list that pertains to "Atheism"(sic)

Christians don't have 'evidence' to answer similar questions of Islamic mythology either.

Your broken reasoning is hilarious.



#1 What caused the universe to exist?

The proper answer from anyone is "I don't know". Yes, there are promising hypotheses, but we don't know enough yet. Christians, other theists, don't have 'evidence' for the cause of the universe, they have theological doctrine and deep-seated beliefs, and "just so because I say so" pseudoanswers. It's not evidence to say "god made the universe".


#2 What explains the fine-tuning of the universe?

There are two different meanings of "fine-tuned" hanging around. One is scientific and is a reference to the model we built of the universe, which requires fine tuning by us in order to reflect what we observe. This happens because our model is incomplete. The other use of "fine-tuning" is nonscientific and is a reference to the perception *some* people have of the universe as a whole.



#3 Why is the universe rational?

Who said the universe is rational? What is rational supposed to mean in this context?




#4 How did DNA and amino acids arise?

Atheist: natural means Theist: supernatural means. Wow, I guess theists win that one!



#5 Where did the genetic code come from?

Atheist: natural means Theist: supernatural means. You sure burned another atheist on that one!



#6 How did irreducibly complex chains evolve?

Irreducibly complex systems arise through ordinary evolutionary mechanisms; there is nothing special about them but a creationist's lack of knowledge, imagination, and determination to believe they are right no matter what.



#7 How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessecity?

Are humans the only biological creatures capable of independent thought?



#8 How do we account for self-awareness?

Sensory experience is a factor here. It is not agreed upon that humans are the only self-aware biological creatures on this planet. However, how do theists account for their god's purported self-awarenes?



#9 How is free will possible in a material universe?

The definition of "free will" is not agreed upon, nor is its existence.



#10 How do we account for conscience?

If by "conscience" you mean a moral code instilled in humans, there is ample evidence and valid reasoning as to how "morality" or a sense of fairness arises in ALL social mammals - it is a requirement any social group must fulfill if the group is to work/live cooperatively and thrive as whole.


#11 On what basis can we make moral judgments?

It is dishonest to ask questions pertaining to ethics and philosophy that not even theists agree on the answers to. But we can ask ourselves, on what basis do theists judge their god to be moral? On what basis do religionists judge that their religions contain a code of ethics worthy of adhering to? The true answer to question #11 lies in there.



#12 Why does suffering matter?

Does suffering matter in Christianity? To whom? I haven't seen any evidence that Christian doctrine contains consistent reasoning about suffering; sometimes it matters, often it doesn't. There is no reason to be a hypocrite and ask this of atheists, who will have different beliefs and answers. My personal belief: it matters to us because we're alive, we can suffer, and suffering is not conducive to our well-being.



#13 Why do human beings matter?

Because we say so. Lol!



#14 Why care about justice?

Our innate sense of fairness is satisfied by the execution of justice and the correction of perceived wrongs. This is tied into why we social mammals must form a code of behavior (morality) in order for the group to thrive (not merely survive).


#15 How do we account for belief in the supernatural?

Intuitive reasoning. Lack of knowledge about natural phenomena, mystery. (Loss of mystery is why so many theists feel their beliefs are threatened by the knowledge accumuating in biology and cosmology) The common need for some kind of 'answer' in a knowledge gap; most of us have great fear of the unknown. Emotional soothing. The great need of social mammals to have social contact; innate fear of isolation and aloneness. Protective blanket. Lots of things, there are innumerable reasons people have different supernatural beliefs.


#16 How do we know the supernatural does not exist?

Finally, a question that actually has some relevance to atheism. And the answer is: we don't know.



#17 How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?

If the 'dead' interacted with us in some way to make their existence known and irrefutable.


#18 What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances, and growth of the church?

What empty tomb? What resurrection appearances? The growth of what church? How did other religions previously spead themselves other than conquest and breeding? Are popular ideas true because they are popular?


Why are all atheists evidentialists? This is news to me. Did you recently google evidentialism after reading a post where I mentioned it?

Why does your god exist?

What is your god's purpose in existence? Who/what decided it?

What is the definition of morality?

Have you judged your god to be moral, if so, why? On what basis did you make this judgment?

When did this morality develop, if your previous answer was yes?

Can morality develop in a social vaccuum?

Can self-awareness develop in a social vaccuum?

Why do theists tend to practice relativistic moral reasoning? Why then do so many turn around and piss on relativism? Why are two mutually exclusive standards of ethics (one for humans, one for gods) frequently encouraged in theistic doctrine?

Why do atheists tend to practice universal/objective moral reasoning in spite of believing themselves moral relativists? Why do atheists tend to judge the purported actions of gods, characters in religion, and modern humans by one standard of ethics?

Why do so many religionists seem to worship death? Is the afterlife (with god) ideal or more important than this life? If so, why do we value this life so much, if at all? Do children 'go to god' when they die, that the absolute best thing that could ever happen to any person? If so, why don't we kill childern so they can experience that wonderful life as soon as possible? If we are punished for killing children, then why isn't the greatest sacrifice a person could make would be to dedicate their lives to giving the gift of death to children and freeing them from this inferior mortal life? But perhaps none of this applies, maybe deceased children 'go' elsewhere when they die? Do you personally have different or unconventional beliefs about the afterlife?

The topic is, IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM???

So this is your evidence?

I gave answers to all of your idiotic questions. I suppose you accepted them because you didn't have anything about them. Now you can't answer my questions. We all know why you're avoiding them, lol! Theists who try to deflect from such questions, or refuse to acknowledge them in any way, or give unsatisfactory answers, are the primary cause of atheism. Theists are the ones making claims about gods and various aspects of their respective religions. It is their job to convince us IF AND ONLY IF they want to convert peoeple.

You cannot demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of atheism when atheism is caused by the failure of theists to answer such questions, and others like them. Atheism does not and would not exist without theism because atheism is the result of the failure of theism to convince everyone to have the same beliefs about the gods. In this manner atheism and theism are mutually inclusive. Doubt and disbelief are CAUSED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. YOU are the representative of your beliefs right now. YOU are a representative of your god when you preach of its existence and of its properties.


That is all there is to religion - the books and the people who preach them. Holy books are static, unthinking and nonresponsive to new stimuli. No gods are coming to us and telling us THE TRUTH. Fundies like you cannot be or refuse to be HONEST --- YOU ARE THE ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION about your gods and your religious doctrines. You consistently take on airs of enlightenment and then fail to deliver wisdom or knowledge when it is most needed. The only way to demonstrate the superiority of your position, since you are so plainly desperate to do so, is to do your best to give satisfactory and DIRECT answers to those questions. You do nothing but display hypocrisy, insult people's intelligences, by preaching of the profound reasoning present in your beliefs and then expect people to abandon their reason and join your faith on nothing more than your say so.

You succeed only in pushing people further away from your religion with your UGLY, REPUGNANT BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES, including SOME OF YOUR OWN ADHERENTS, as Christianity has been experiencing the past decade. The Catholic Church especially, of all the Christian denominations, has been bleeding members and has only recently acknowledged that and began a nice big PR parade to give the Church a new positive image. Of course this means changing doctrine, but no big surprise there since the doctrine is completely invented to begin with. Evangelical Protestantism comes in second but is losing adherents all the same.

You may not be inclined to believe that given your bias. But you should also consider the fact that 'militant' athesm is ALSO losing atheists who don't want to be associated with that same UGLINESS on the other side of the theistic coin.

It's not my fault you're a death worshipper. It's not my fault you hate atheists. I am happy to live and let live, I don't feel any desire to deconvert the theists around me and convince them their religion is not quite right. You are clearly unwilling to live that way, people like you are one of the biggest reasons there is so much abject misery and inequality in the world. Congratulations; you win, everyone loses.

Edited by Duchykins, 25 February 2014 - 06:02 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I just gave those that said they need no evidence some discussion suggestions. You think you have produced evidence with these simple gloss replies. Then you typically start attacking theists, name calling and all the rest. Hohummm, not impressed. But if you think this makes the case, OK. Don't want to cause you doubt in your faith.

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 February 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Duchykins]

I just gave those that said they need no evidence some discussion suggestions. You think you have produced evidence with these simple gloss replies. Then you typically start attacking theists, name calling and all the rest. Hohummm, not impressed. But if you think this makes the case, OK. Don't want to cause you doubt in your faith.

I most certainly do not think I "produced evidence" with mere argumentation. That is what YOU think 'evidence' is.

I have faith in many things including humanity. You can't make me doubt my faith. No single person can with such frivolous and puerile nonsense as yours, nor with your 'evidence'. That is the enlightenment of faith, remember?

I know that you know what I'm talking about.


I don't malign or sneer at faith; you do. And when you do, you look like ... like an antitheist. An arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, obnoxious fundy atheist.

I understand some theists (not all because some theists are decent, learned people) feel the intellectual bankruptcy of their own beliefs and have adopted this newish thing where they borrow some of the attitudes antitheists have toward "faith" and (organized) "religion" as well as "reason" and "evidence"- because they know viscerally that there is a nugget of persuasive correctness in the idea itself, despite it being delivered so venomously by antitheists.

Of course, it always sounds laughably ridiculous when coming from a theist because it is so incredibly obvious that many theists will alter their attitudes and beliefs to align them with rising popular sentiments like scorning 'faith' and 'religion' in favor of 'reason' and 'evidence'.

Keep up the good work. You are helping to create more 'agnostics', atheists, antitheists, nondenominational theists, deists and pantheists. You are certainly not helping to create more Christians, lol! If I believed in the devil this is where I would say you are doing the devil's work.

Edited by Duchykins, 25 February 2014 - 09:31 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I just gave those that said they need no evidence some discussion suggestions. You think you have produced evidence with these simple gloss replies. Then you typically start attacking theists, name calling and all the rest. Hohummm, not impressed. But if you think this makes the case, OK. Don't want to cause you doubt in your faith.

I most certainly do not think I "produced evidence" with mere argumentation. That is what YOU think 'evidence' is.

I have faith in many things including humanity. You can't make me doubt my faith. No single person can with such frivolous and puerile nonsense as yours, nor with your 'evidence'. That is the enlightenment of faith, remember?

I know that you know what I'm talking about.


I don't malign or sneer at faith; you do. And when you do, you look like ... like an antitheist. An arrogant, ignorant, intolerant, obnoxious fundy atheist.

I understand some theists (not all because some theists are decent, learned people) feel the intellectual bankruptcy of their own beliefs and have adopted this newish thing where they borrow some of the attitudes antitheists have toward "faith" and (organized) "religion" as well as "reason" and "evidence"- because they know viscerally that there is a nugget of persuasive correctness in the idea itself, despite it being delivered so venomously by antitheists.

Of course, it always sounds laughably ridiculous when coming from a theist because it is so incredibly obvious that many theists will alter their attitudes and beliefs to align them with rising popular sentiments like scorning 'faith' and 'religion' in favor of 'reason' and 'evidence'.

Keep up the good work. You are helping to create more 'agnostics', atheists, antitheists, nondenominational theists, deists and pantheists. You are certainly not helping to create more Christians, lol! If I believed in the devil this is where I would say you are doing the devil's work.

Now it is the devil I work for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A fundy atheist. Name calling, logical fallacies, MEAT. Wow. And some theists are not dumb. Thanks. How reasonable is your evidence for the topic. You think I know what you are talking about but I must be one of the dumb ones. I don't have a clue.

Edited by shadowhawk, 25 February 2014 - 11:19 PM.

[platypus]

People do not seem to communicate with God even if they believe that they are in fact communicating -> makes me think "God" is a construct in their heads.

[shadowhawk]

People do not seem to communicate with God even if they believe that they are in fact communicating -> makes me think "God" is a construct in their heads.

Is this evidence for atheism or a red herring where you change the subject?

[platypus]

People do not seem to communicate with God even if they believe that they are in fact communicating -> makes me think "God" is a construct in their heads.

Is this evidence for atheism or a red herring where you change the subject?

This is evidence for Gods being fairytales. IF the Judeo-Christian God existed one would think that he'd settle once and for all what the right doctrine is. Why does "God" "talk" to Jews, Mormons and Jehova's Wittnesses but does not point our their errors? Either this God really does not care about massive differences is beliefs/doctrine (which is NOT what is what is written in the scriptures), or he/she does not exist.

Edited by platypus, 27 February 2014 - 06:01 AM.

[johnross47]

People do not seem to communicate with God even if they believe that they are in fact communicating -> makes me think "God" is a construct in their heads.

Is this evidence for atheism or a red herring where you change the subject?

This is evidence for Gods being fairytales. IF the Judeo-Christian God existed one would think that he'd settle once and for all what the right doctrine is. Why does "God" "talk" to Jews, Mormons and Jehova's Wittnesses but does not point our their errors? Either this God really does not care about massive differences is beliefs/doctrine (which is NOT what is what is written in the scriptures), or he/she does not exist.

It has been pointed out many times that it would be useful to know which god we are talking about. The statement, "there are no gods anywhere in this universe or any others," is rather different from the statement, "the god proposed by sect A is incoherent," or, "the god proposed by the Scotts Valley Thrawn Sect is clearly, on historic grounds, made up." I think we can reasonably expect the OP to clarify the issue. Atheists and agnostics, here, can justifiably say that they have not been presented with any evidence for any particular proposed god so far, and so can resonably persist in their non belief. There are many things I don't believe in, but each day's news presents things and events that I come to believe in, (assuming reality is not a sick joke) such as the latest model of car, scientific breakthrough, newly discovered animal, apology by the Pope. (sorry I made the last one up.)

[shadowhawk]

People do not seem to communicate with God even if they believe that they are in fact communicating -> makes me think "God" is a construct in their heads.

Is this evidence for atheism or a red herring where you change the subject?

This is evidence for Gods being fairytales. IF the Judeo-Christian God existed one would think that he'd settle once and for all what the right doctrine is. Why does "God" "talk" to Jews, Mormons and Jehova's Wittnesses but does not point our their errors? Either this God really does not care about massive differences is beliefs/doctrine (which is NOT what is what is written in the scriptures), or he/she does not exist.

It has been pointed out many times that it would be useful to know which god we are talking about. The statement, "there are no gods anywhere in this universe or any others," is rather different from the statement, "the god proposed by sect A is incoherent," or, "the god proposed by the Scotts Valley Thrawn Sect is clearly, on historic grounds, made up." I think we can reasonably expect the OP to clarify the issue. Atheists and agnostics, here, can justifiably say that they have not been presented with any evidence for any particular proposed god so far, and so can resonably persist in their non belief. There are many things I don't believe in, but each day's news presents things and events that I come to believe in, (assuming reality is not a sick joke) such as the latest model of car, scientific breakthrough, newly discovered animal, apology by the Pope. (sorry I made the last one up.)

Is there evidence for Atheism is the topic. Not which God. You know that, i think.

The topic is, is there evidence for Atheism? All I get is name calling and red Herring arguments.

I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. (A negative such as there is no God, or no God exists) Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search the world to answer that question. (some faith involved)

The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence. Now, the cosmos cannot explain itself either and its existence in its own right is full of constrictions. Give me evidence for Atheism, besides logical fallacies. There is only one theist here, surely you can do better than that.

[shadowhawk]

1
A great Atheist empire. Evidence for Atheism.
“The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. By 1939 only about 500 of over 50,000 churches remained open.”
(Library of Congress, Soviet Archives Exhibit)

“Atheist propaganda and the struggle against religion began immediately after the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917. While social change would, under Marxist theory, bring religion to disappear, Leninists argued that the Party should actively help to eradicate religion as a vital step in creating ‘New Soviet Man’. The energy with which the Party struggled against religion, though, varied considerably from time to time and from place to place, as did its hostility to particular faith groups. The 1920s saw the closure of innumerable churches and synagogues (and to a lesser extent mosques) and the active persecution of clergy and harassment of believers. From 1930, though, Stalin introduced a less aggressive approach, and wartime support for the government earned for the Russian Orthodox Church, at least, a level of toleration which lasted until Stalin’s death. Under Khrushchev antireligious efforts resumed, if spasmodically, and they lasted until the end of the Soviet Union.”
(a peer-reviewed journal article authored by Crispin Paine of the University College, London:)

“During the ultra-left period of forcible collectivisation and the Five Year Plan in Four an attempt was made to liquidate the Church and its influence by government decree. Starting in 1929 churches were forcibly closed and priests arrested and exiled all over the Soviet Union. The celebrated Shrine of the Iberian Virgin in Moscow – esteemed by believers to be the “holiest” in all Russia was demolished – Stalin and his Government were not afraid of strengthening religious fanaticism by wounding the feelings of believers as Lenin and Trotsky had been! Religion, they believed, could be liquidated, like the kulak, by a stroke of the pen. The Society of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism” – by May 1st 1937, such as the “Plan”, “not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses.”!”
(the pro-communism Marxist.com web site says this about Stalin:}
“Now, 75 years after one of the great forgotten crimes of modern times, Stalin's man-made famine of 1932/3, the former Soviet republic of Ukraine is asking the world to classify it as a genocide.
The Ukrainians call it the Holodomor - the Hunger.
Millions starved as Soviet troops and secret policemen raided their villages, stole the harvest and all the food in villagers' homes.
They dropped dead in the streets, lay dying and rotting in their houses, and some women became so desperate for food that they ate their own children.
If they managed to fend off starvation, they were deported and shot in their hundreds of thousands.
So terrible was the famine that Igor Yukhnovsky, director of the Institute of National Memory, the Ukrainian institution researching the Holodomor, believes as many as nine million may have died.
[...]Between four and five million died in Ukraine, a million died in Kazakhstan and another million in the north Caucasus and the Volga.
By 1933, 5.7 million households - somewhere between ten million and 15 million people - had vanished. They had been deported, shot or died of starvation.”
UK Daily Mail

Shall we talk about China and other great atheist empires? Is the evidence for Atheism religious or do they have their own evidence?

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 February 2014 - 01:21 AM.

[platypus]

Lack of evidence for gods is the best evidence for atheism. Also, since the founders of many religions had "visions" it's important to understand how those experiences are created in the brain, without any deities. Google for TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) and religious experience. Gods are not needed to explain any known phenomena!

[beatsme]

My understanding is that atheism is the position that the existence of God requires proof, and since there has been no conclusive proof to date, there is no rational, empirical basis for the belief that God exists. To put this into the language of statistical inference, atheism is effectively a null hypothesis. It is not possible to prove a null hypothesis, because there cannot ever be evidence for the absence of something, only A) evidence for something, or B) a lack of evidence for something. Ergo, it is not possible to "prove" the position of atheism, because the absence of God cannot be proven.

[shadowhawk]

Lack of evidence for gods is the best evidence for atheism. Also, since the founders of many religions had "visions" it's important to understand how those experiences are created in the brain, without any deities. Google for TLE (Temporal Lobe Epilepsy) and religious experience. Gods are not needed to explain any known phenomena!

is the lack of evidence for Atheism, the best evidence for Theism? Great!!! This does answer our topic, is there evidence for Atheism? No, because there is a God. The lack of evidence for Atheism proves it.

[shadowhawk]

My understanding is that atheism is the position that the existence of God requires proof, and since there has been no conclusive proof to date, there is no rational, empirical basis for the belief that God exists. To put this into the language of statistical inference, atheism is effectively a null hypothesis. It is not possible to prove a null hypothesis, because there cannot ever be evidence for the absence of something, only A) evidence for something, or B) a lack of evidence for something. Ergo, it is not possible to "prove" the position of atheism, because the absence of God cannot be proven.

Wrong

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...post__p__502597

Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
http://www.nizkor.or...ed-herring.html

[beatsme]

Yawn. The definition for atheism that you choose to address is overly narrow, chosen to support your own line of argument, and therefore a classic case of confirmation bias and is itself a strawman. You don't have to go far to find a more inclusive definition, in line with the description I provided earlier. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, states the following:

Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God.

Edited by postscarce, 28 February 2014 - 11:18 PM.

[shadowhawk]

You said:

Postscarce: My understanding is that atheism is the position that the existence of God requires proof, and since there has been no conclusive proof to date, there is no rational, empirical basis for the belief that God exists. To put this into the language of statistical inference, atheism is effectively a null hypothesis. It is not possible to prove a null hypothesis, because there cannot ever be evidence for the absence of something, only A) evidence for something, or B) a lack of evidence for something. Ergo, it is not possible to "prove" the position of atheism, because the absence of God cannot be proven.

The topic is, is there evidence for Atheism? Which you ignored ( red herring) In other word you changed the subject. Not only that but your arguments are empty assertions, with no rational empirical evidence for your belief. I gave the sources for my definition of atheism and I do not apologize for them. However, there is no evidence for atheism. At best you are an agnostic because you have no evidence. In fact you have defined Atheism as merely a psychological state of mind. You don’t believe what? You don’t know. http://www.catholic....-lack-of-belief

Yawn. The definition for atheism that you choose to address is overly narrow, chosen to support your own line of argument, and therefore a classic case of confirmation bias and is itself a strawman. You don't have to go far to find a more inclusive definition, in line with the description I provided earlier. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for example, states the following: “Another meaning of 'atheism' is simply nonbelief in the existence of God, rather than positive belief in the nonexistence of God.”

According to this “Yawn ,” definition my dog is an atheist. So is a rock. How inclusive. My definition must be to small. Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” So small. You want to try the topic again?

[beatsme]

It is not a "red herring" to posit a definition of atheism that differs from your own.

The topic is, is there evidence for Atheism?

My answer to this question, as I stated in my previous response, is that evidence for atheism cannot be obtained because "atheism" is a position that is analogous to a null hypothesis.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in debating semantics any further.

Edited by postscarce, 01 March 2014 - 01:36 AM.

[johnross47]

It is not a "red herring" to posit a definition of atheism that differs from your own.

The topic is, is there evidence for Atheism?

My answer to this question, as I stated in my previous response, is that evidence for atheism cannot be obtained because "atheism" is a position that is analogous to a null hypothesis.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in debating semantics any further.

You won't even get a proper debate on semantics from SH. He insists that only he can decide the proper meaning of atheist. (andeerything else as well.) Atheists are not permitted to define themselves or state their own positions. You can post as often and as clearly as you like but it will be ruled invalid, incoherent, illogical or, more realistically, just not suitable for his purpose.

[platypus]

is the lack of evidence for Atheism, the best evidence for Theism? Great!!! This does answer our topic, is there evidence for Atheism? No, because there is a God. The lack of evidence for Atheism proves it.

Your "feeling" that there is a God proves nothing. Name a phenomena in the here-and-now that requires Gods as an explanation.

[shadowhawk]

is the lack of evidence for Atheism, the best evidence for Theism? Great!!! This does answer our topic, is there evidence for Atheism? No, because there is a God. The lack of evidence for Atheism proves it.

Your "feeling" that there is a God proves nothing. Name a phenomena in the here-and-now that requires Gods as an explanation.

Of course you don't want to discuss atheism and it isn't about mu feelings. Red Herring.

[platypus]

Rational people do not believe in anything without some evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of Gods, it is rational to suppose there are no gods -> therefore (weak) atheism (gods most probably do not exist).

Why is there so much evidence against the existence of Gods?

[shadowhawk]

It is not a "red herring" to posit a definition of atheism that differs from your own.

The topic is, is there evidence for Atheism?

My answer to this question, as I stated in my previous response, is that evidence for atheism cannot be obtained because "atheism" is a position that is analogous to a null hypothesis.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in debating semantics any further.

You won't even get a proper debate on semantics from SH. He insists that only he can decide the proper meaning of atheist. (andeerything else as well.) Atheists are not permitted to define themselves or state their own positions. You can post as often and as clearly as you like but it will be ruled invalid, incoherent, illogical or, more realistically, just not suitable for his purpose.

Nonsense, here is where we have discussed it. I have taken my definitions from top sources and even broken down the root meaning of the word.

1. Definition of Atheism?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502597
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry502599
http://www.longecity...120#entry506777
http://www.longecity...270#entry510904
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771

[shadowhawk]

Rational people do not believe in anything without some evidence. Since there is no evidence for the existence of Gods, it is rational to suppose there are no gods -> therefore (weak) atheism (gods most probably do not exist).

Why is there so much evidence against the existence of Gods?

You believe in Atheism without evidence! And your red herring, no matter how many times tried, does not change the topic.

[shadowhawk]

It is not a "red herring" to posit a definition of atheism that differs from your own.

The topic is, is there evidence for Atheism?

My answer to this question, as I stated in my previous response, is that evidence for atheism cannot be obtained because "atheism" is a position that is analogous to a null hypothesis.

Anyway, I'm really not interested in debating semantics any further.

We have discussed this before’

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

---------------------------------------------

Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

And your above answer is there is no evidence for Atheism. Platypus said, “Rational people do not believe in anything without some evidence.” http://www.longecity...450#entry646885
Hmm Maybe.