1712 replies to this topic

[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?

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

Lack of evidence for gods is the perfect evidence for atheism - this is all that is needed

[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.

Lack of evidence for gods is the perfect evidence for atheism - this is all that is needed

This is a classic argument from ignorance. How do you know there is no evidence? I think there is and have presented some, but for the sake of this discussion you have no evidence that there is no evidence. You have not done a sufficient investigation, and can’t prove there is no evidence for God You are simply using this bad argument to shift the burden of proof.

THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FALLACY
invoking the popular but wrong notion that finding no evidence for something is no evidence for the absence of that thing.
Example:
The fact that you did not see me at your birthday party does not mean I was not there!

Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? The answer is that it all depends on what the thing in question is. It could only mean we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.

Many an innocent person is in prison convected on evidence. In addition we may have evidence for something such as Atheism that is not true if God exists. We may have no evidence for something that is true. Evidence does not necessarily make something true. You either don’t have any evidence or do not but truth is another thing.

[platypus]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

[shadowhawk]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

[platypus]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Wrong. People don't believe in gnomes because they find no evidence for their existence -> agnomism (sic?). Exactly the same holds for gods and atheism.

[johnross47]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Nobody believes in atheism; they don't believe in your god(s?). Your continual dishonesty in this makes the argument a waste of time.

[shadowhawk]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Wrong. People don't believe in gnomes because they find no evidence for their existence -> agnomism (sic?). Exactly the same holds for gods and atheism.

My dog is an atheist, in fact there are lots of things he doesn't believe in that do exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. http://www.longecity...480#entry646940

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 March 2014 - 08:46 PM.

[shadowhawk]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Nobody believes in atheism; they don't believe in your god(s?). Your continual dishonesty in this makes the argument a waste of time.

Some do believe in atheism. They believe there is no God (of any kind) Hindus do not believe in Islam. Does that make them atheist? No, they are Hindus. I don't believe in atheism, does that make me an atheist. No, I am a Christian. As you say, nobody believes in atheism ( with good reason, there is no evidence for it) and this includes you.

I started out defining Atheism using top sources. That is what the topic is about. Not a red herring. You do not believe in Atheism. Ok. Perhaps this is not your topic.

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
6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 March 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[johnross47]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Nobody believes in atheism; they don't believe in your god(s?). Your continual dishonesty in this makes the argument a waste of time.

Some do believe in atheism. They believe there is no God (of any kind) Hindus do not believe in Islam. Does that make them atheist? No, they are Hindus. I don't believe in atheism, does that make me an atheist. No, I am a Christian. As you say, nobody believes in atheism ( with good reason, there is no evidence for it) and this includes you.

I started out defining Atheism using top sources. That is what the topic is about. Not a red herring. You do not believe in Atheism. Ok. Perhaps this is not your topic.

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
6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940

When you refuse to accept what other people mean in defining their own beliefs you reduce the argument to empty shouting between deaf people.

[DukeNukem]

We should all ignore ShadowHawk, because he's proven himself to be a very poor debater, unwilling to concede in the least any faults in his arguments, or see the merits of other people's points.

So why continue with him?

[shadowhawk]

We should all ignore ShadowHawk, because he's proven himself to be a very poor debater, unwilling to concede in the least any faults in his arguments, or see the merits of other people's points.

So why continue with him?

Because this is not an argument either but ad hominem. What should I concede a change in topic? Why don't you start a new topic on agnosticism? Is there evidence for Agnosticism???

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 March 2014 - 07:02 PM.

[shadowhawk]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Nobody believes in atheism; they don't believe in your god(s?). Your continual dishonesty in this makes the argument a waste of time.

Some do believe in atheism. They believe there is no God (of any kind) Hindus do not believe in Islam. Does that make them atheist? No, they are Hindus. I don't believe in atheism, does that make me an atheist. No, I am a Christian. As you say, nobody believes in atheism ( with good reason, there is no evidence for it) and this includes you.

I started out defining Atheism using top sources. That is what the topic is about. Not a red herring. You do not believe in Atheism. Ok. Perhaps this is not your topic.

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
6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940

When you refuse to accept what other people mean in defining their own beliefs you reduce the argument to empty shouting between deaf people.

I don't doubt that you believe something different than atheism. Go ahead, define your own belief, that is not what the topic is about.

[johnross47]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Nobody believes in atheism; they don't believe in your god(s?). Your continual dishonesty in this makes the argument a waste of time.

Some do believe in atheism. They believe there is no God (of any kind) Hindus do not believe in Islam. Does that make them atheist? No, they are Hindus. I don't believe in atheism, does that make me an atheist. No, I am a Christian. As you say, nobody believes in atheism ( with good reason, there is no evidence for it) and this includes you.

I started out defining Atheism using top sources. That is what the topic is about. Not a red herring. You do not believe in Atheism. Ok. Perhaps this is not your topic.

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
6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940

When you refuse to accept what other people mean in defining their own beliefs you reduce the argument to empty shouting between deaf people.

I don't doubt that you believe something different than atheism. Go ahead, define your own belief, that is not what the topic is about.

Selective quoting is a tool of dishonest politicians and drug companies. (to name but two categories of con men) Other definitions of atheism exist without there being any official version. If you are free to choose yours then we must be free to choose ours, and Lewis Carrol wins. I reject belief in deities because so far I see no reason to believe. I'm not proposing atheism; I am saying wait and see. This is from the usual Wicki source.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted withtheism,^[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[9][10]

[shadowhawk]

From Wikipedia: "Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist."

https://en.wikipedia...ence_of_absence

What is missing in atheism is evidence.

Nobody believes in atheism; they don't believe in your god(s?). Your continual dishonesty in this makes the argument a waste of time.

Some do believe in atheism. They believe there is no God (of any kind) Hindus do not believe in Islam. Does that make them atheist? No, they are Hindus. I don't believe in atheism, does that make me an atheist. No, I am a Christian. As you say, nobody believes in atheism ( with good reason, there is no evidence for it) and this includes you.

I started out defining Atheism using top sources. That is what the topic is about. Not a red herring. You do not believe in Atheism. Ok. Perhaps this is not your topic.

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
6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940

When you refuse to accept what other people mean in defining their own beliefs you reduce the argument to empty shouting between deaf people.

I don't doubt that you believe something different than atheism. Go ahead, define your own belief, that is not what the topic is about.

Selective quoting is a tool of dishonest politicians and drug companies. (to name but two categories of con men) Other definitions of atheism exist without there being any official version. If you are free to choose yours then we must be free to choose ours, and Lewis Carrol wins. I reject belief in deities because so far I see no reason to believe. I'm not proposing atheism; I am saying wait and see. This is from the usual Wicki source.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.^[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.^[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted withtheism,^[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.^[9][10]

You said, “Nobody believes in atheism” http://www.longecity...480#entry647358
So, I take it, you do not believe in Atheism. Now you try to define what you don’t believe in. I don’t believe this either.

“Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] SH: Here the rejection is of “belief,” in God or God which is believed. Sense people do believe in God, the rejection of belief is obviously not the issue. Since atheists believe there is no God, this is what they are rejecting. Atheists believe there is no God and reject the belief of those that do.

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] SH: I agree with this. Atheists believe there is no God. This fits with everything I have said and fits the first section of this quote as I have explained it.

Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10] SH: Follow my argument for this logical fallacy. http://www.longecity...#entry646940 "
“
I do not believe in Atheism. No because it is a negative. NO EVIDENCE.
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

Edited by shadowhawk, 05 March 2014 - 09:07 PM.

[sthira]

We should all ignore ShadowHawk, because he's proven himself to be a very poor debater, unwilling to concede in the least any faults in his arguments, or see the merits of other people's points.

So why continue with him?

I agree.  Which is unfortunate.  It's unfortunate because if we are to live longer, healthier lives I think some of the topics worthy of our time are these big, unanswered questions.   Questions surrounding "god", cosmology, our origins, why we exist, why anything exists rather than nothing -- this is all fascinating stuff that's turned sour here.  This isn't the space for open inquiry.  This is the space for more flame war religion junk-talk.  That's a shame.  Refusal to stay flexible and open to the new insights science is bringing us seems like a hallmark of "aging".  Want a fast track to "get old"?  Keep engaging in the fruitless, constipated "discussions" like those happening here.

[johnross47]

We should all ignore ShadowHawk, because he's proven himself to be a very poor debater, unwilling to concede in the least any faults in his arguments, or see the merits of other people's points.

So why continue with him?

I agree. Which is unfortunate. It's unfortunate because if we are to live longer, healthier lives I think some of the topics worthy of our time are these big, unanswered questions. Questions surrounding "god", cosmology, our origins, why we exist, why anything exists rather than nothing -- this is all fascinating stuff that's turned sour here. This isn't the space for open inquiry. This is the space for more flame war religion junk-talk. That's a shame. Refusal to stay flexible and open to the new insights science is bringing us seems like a hallmark of "aging". Want a fast track to "get old"? Keep engaging in the fruitless, constipated "discussions" like those happening here.

Although I struggle on, I do agree too, unfortunately. I find the issues involved interesting but the debate here futile. From time to time it opens up when someone else joins in, but SH usually bores them away, or just annoys them by refusing to acknowledge anybody else's points.

[shadowhawk]

You have not made any points except the attempt to sell a red herring as the topic. Sorry.

NO ONE BELIEVES ATHEISM seems to at least be a point of agreement between us. CU

[johnross47]

You have not made any points except the attempt to sell a red herring as the topic. Sorry.

NO ONE BELIEVES ATHEISM seems to at least be a point of agreement between us. CU

A perfect example unfortunately, of what is complained of. You refuse to engage in honest debate, continually misrepresenting or ignoring other people's views.

[platypus]

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

Edited by platypus, 06 March 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[johnross47]

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

It sometimes seems like there are more labels for positions than philosophers to hold them. The problem here is that labels are being used as weapons, to deny the validity of other's positions; to deny them the right even to have a position. I think we should all state simply in our own words what we believe and what we don't believe, and accept that what other people have said is an honest attempt to explain their view of the world.

(1) I don't believe in any deity so far proposed to me, on the grounds that no adequate evidence for the existence of a deity has been produced.

(2) I don't believe in atheism because it isn't a thing: it's a statement equivalent to (1) in the sense in which I am using the word; that is, I lack belief in a god.

(3) If asked to gamble I would put my money on there not being a god approximately equivalent to any of the gods so far proposed to me; I don't expect any adequate evidence to be produced. Surprises make life interesting but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them.

[shadowhawk]

You have not made any points except the attempt to sell a red herring as the topic. Sorry.

NO ONE BELIEVES ATHEISM seems to at least be a point of agreement between us. CU

A perfect example unfortunately, of what is complained of. You refuse to engage in honest debate, continually misrepresenting or ignoring other people's views.

You do believe in atheism? Is there evidence for it?

[shadowhawk]

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

OK, no evidence but a bet. Don't know what atheism is. (agnostic)

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: It sometimes seems like there are more labels for positions than philosophers to hold them. The problem here is that labels are being used as weapons, to deny the validity of other's positions; to deny them the right even to have a position. I think we should all state simply in our own words what we believe and what we don't believe, and accept that what other people have said is an honest attempt to explain their view of the world.

SH: I have clearly given the definition of Atheism in this topic as its creator. I denied no one the right to start a topic beside this one. So, start one and explain.
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
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612


(1) I don't believe in any deity so far proposed to me, on the grounds that no adequate evidence for the existence of a deity has been produced.

Nice testimony, no evidence, red herring so off topic.

(2) I don't believe in atheism because it isn't a thing: it's a statement equivalent to (1) in the sense in which I am using the word; that is, I lack belief in a god.

Again, so does my dog. You don’t believe in atheism and you don’t even know what it is. A rock lacks a belief in God. Since you have no belief, why are you arguing?

(3) If asked to gamble I would put my money on there not being a god approximately equivalent to any of the gods so far proposed to me; I don't expect any adequate evidence to be produced. Surprises make life interesting but I'm not holding my breath waiting for them.

So you are a gambler. You win some and loose some. This is not evidence.

[platypus]

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

OK, no evidence but a bet. Don't know what atheism is. (agnostic)

Of course this is based on evidence, otherwise I'd stay fully agnostic and say that I think the probability is about 50/50.

[johnross47]

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

OK, no evidence but a bet. Don't know what atheism is. (agnostic)

Of course this is based on evidence, otherwise I'd stay fully agnostic and say that I think the probability is about 50/50.

It would be hard to produce odds; a bit like somebody showing you a box and asking you to guess what's in it. You might say that, based on the size of the box it's not a full grown elephant or a battleship but otherwise you would have no clues. The clues about the beginning of our universe are only marginally better.

[DukeNukem]

A brand new Harris Poll reveals that supernatural beliefs, like ghosts, unicorns, and gods, continues to decline as it has for the last several decades.

Perhaps the best reason for the ongoing decline is the new Internet information age we now live in. There's no greater weapon against supernatural beliefs than the spread of knowledge.

At the current rate of decline, in a few decades non-believers will outnumber believers in this country.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1353/Default.aspx

[shadowhawk]

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

OK, no evidence but a bet. Don't know what atheism is. (agnostic)

Of course this is based on evidence, otherwise I'd stay fully agnostic and say that I think the probability is about 50/50.

I am not the one betting. No evidence for atheism?

I think it's highly improbable that gods exist, so I'd bet my money against it. I don't really care if you'd call this weak atheism or probabilistic agnosticism or whatever.

OK, no evidence but a bet. Don't know what atheism is. (agnostic)

Of course this is based on evidence, otherwise I'd stay fully agnostic and say that I think the probability is about 50/50.

It would be hard to produce odds; a bit like somebody showing you a box and asking you to guess what's in it. You might say that, based on the size of the box it's not a full grown elephant or a battleship but otherwise you would have no clues. The clues about the beginning of our universe are only marginally better.

Now you are saying you can't bet.

[shadowhawk]

A brand new Harris Poll reveals that supernatural beliefs, like ghosts, unicorns, and gods, continues to decline as it has for the last several decades.

Perhaps the best reason for the ongoing decline is the new Internet information age we now live in. There's no greater weapon against supernatural beliefs than the spread of knowledge.

At the current rate of decline, in a few decades non-believers will outnumber believers in this country.

http://www.harrisint...53/Default.aspx

I don’t believe in ghosts (?) Unicorns or Spaghetti monsters either. I guess I belong in this stat.. If we are playing the numbers game, atheists loose hands down.

[johnross47]

A brand new Harris Poll reveals that supernatural beliefs, like ghosts, unicorns, and gods, continues to decline as it has for the last several decades.

Perhaps the best reason for the ongoing decline is the new Internet information age we now live in. There's no greater weapon against supernatural beliefs than the spread of knowledge.

At the current rate of decline, in a few decades non-believers will outnumber believers in this country.

http://www.harrisint...53/Default.aspx

Much to be desired, but I'm not holding my breath on this one either. The process is quite advanced in Europe, but the internet is also home to every variety of nonsense and misinformation and we keep suffering influxes of superstition from elsewhere. We can only hope that as the immigrants become part of our society, they adopt more rational world views.

[DukeNukem]

I don’t believe in ghosts (?) Unicorns or Spaghetti monsters either. I guess I belong in this stat.. If we are playing the numbers game, atheists loose hands down.

There are literally 1000's of gods and goddesses (and supernatural beliefs) that have fallen by the wayside over 1000's of years. Why would anyone not expect the same fate of the current crop of deities?

Oh, and I'll save you the trouble of your typical snappy retort: Yes, this is off-topic.

Edited by DukeNukem, 08 March 2014 - 06:34 PM.