1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47: |"The only attempt you make at justifying your abuse of atheists and agnostics is your denial of their positions. The fantasy atheist you want to argue with, presumably because you have some sophistic arguments to use up, is not really here, so you tell people that they don't really know what they think and abuse the people you want them to be instead.
In the real world nobody springs up as a ready made atheist or christian or anything else. The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions. Most people don't ever give it much thought. For many I suspect that it is a slow process of realising that the stories you've been told are a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense. Even at that level most people don't actually consider the so-called proofs of god's existence. Most people couldn't even vaguely describe one, never mind analyse it logically. The default position of non-believers is mainly fairly casual rejection of the story told. For those of us who have thought about it the position is considered rejection; not a positive belief that no gods exist anywhere, but a denial of the stories told so far. You can reject this as much as you like but it will just result in more wasted time and pointless attempts to start a fight with a straw man.”

The topic is, Is there Evidence for Atheism. That is all I have ever asked for. I am talking about Atheism, not Agnosticism. I have abused no one. Show me where.

I didn’t learn my religion from my parents and I know many others also. What does this genetic fallacy have to do with anything?

More typical name calling from you.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

[shadowhawk]

Or a continuation of one of the longest-lived unpunished sessions of continuous and successful trolling. Seriously, this is just too perfect, I think it's an attempt at Guiness.

In case you dont know what a troll is
"An internet 'troll' is an abusive or obnoxious user who uses shock value to promote arguments and disharmony in online communities. Named after the wicked troll creatures of children's tales, an internet troll is someone who stirs up drama and abuses their online anonymity by purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, mysogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls like a big audience, so they frequent blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat. Trolls thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments."

Trolls go off topic, commit logical fallacies, call people names, change subjects, and disrupt conversations. They try to derail the topic against form rules and guidelines. NOW WHO IS DOING THAT?

[Jeoshua]

I would argue that this whole thread is trolling. To ask if there is evidence for atheism is really quite inflammatory, a misuse of the word "evidence", and a total misunderstanding of Atheism in the first place.

This thread was posted along side a post asking if there is any evidence for Christianity. So to ask if there is evidence for Atheism is adding fuel to the fire. Nobody posted a thread asking if there was evidence for Buddhism, nor is there a thread asking if there is evidence for Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, or any other thought process. The Christian-Atheism antagonistic relationship is well known to be one of the more inflammatory ones, on par with the Judaism-Islam disconnect. True, in the past Christians did put so-called "doubters" to the flame, but that was the dark ages and we've all grown up since then, far-right wing pundits not withstanding.

Evidence is not something that Atheists are asking for in regards to the existence or nonexistence of deity. It is, in fact, the opposite. Atheists do not believe that appeals to tradition are enough, and find the so-called evidence that is presented in the form of Bibles and Sagas unconvincing as to the true and full nature of reality. Atheists find no evidence that there is, in fact, a deity as described in these books, they don't have some single-minded alternative form of evidence that supersedes it, and (before anyone says it) the argument that they replace Faith with Science is a hollow one. Atheists do not automatically believe everything Science has to say, and Science is not their replacement for God. End of point.

[Vardarac]

Trolls go off topic, commit logical fallacies, call people names, change subjects, and disrupt conversations. They try to derail the topic against form rules and guidelines. NOW WHO IS DOING THAT?

I would imagine it's the guy bringing up straw men in response to my points rather than actually addressing them. You know, the one pretending that remarks are off-topic when they're perfectly relevant, to which the guy never actually justifies his position that they are irrelevant despite his opponents having presented evidence to the contrary. The one who's been doing this for, say, two years.

Finding no signs of mice in your attic makes it perfectly reasonable to believe there are no mice in your attic. It doesn't mean that the belief is true, just reasonable until evidence is presented to the contrary. This is a perfectly on-topic and relevant analogy, like many of the others you have ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.

Respond, or forever hold your peace!

Edited by Vardarac, 04 April 2014 - 08:02 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Trolls go off topic, commit logical fallacies, call people names, change subjects, and disrupt conversations. They try to derail the topic against form rules and guidelines. NOW WHO IS DOING THAT?

I would imagine it's the guy bringing up straw men in response to my points rather than actually addressing them. You know, the one pretending that remarks are off-topic when they're perfectly relevant, to which the guy never actually justifies his position that they are irrelevant despite his opponents having presented evidence to the contrary. The one who's been doing this for, say, two years.

Finding no signs of mice in your attic makes it perfectly reasonable to believe there are no mice in your attic. It doesn't mean that the belief is true, just reasonable until evidence is presented to the contrary. This is a perfectly on-topic and relevant analogy, like many of the others you have ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.

Respond, or forever hold your peace!

Could it be you a skeptic truing to change the subject in a topic on Atheism by asking questions on theism. If you were on topic I replied to you and I will. What straw man? Show me.

Edited by shadowhawk, 04 April 2014 - 09:43 PM.

[johnross47]

Johnross47: |"The only attempt you make at justifying your abuse of atheists and agnostics is your denial of their positions. The fantasy atheist you want to argue with, presumably because you have some sophistic arguments to use up, is not really here, so you tell people that they don't really know what they think and abuse the people you want them to be instead.
In the real world nobody springs up as a ready made atheist or christian or anything else. The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions. Most people don't ever give it much thought. For many I suspect that it is a slow process of realising that the stories you've been told are a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense. Even at that level most people don't actually consider the so-called proofs of god's existence. Most people couldn't even vaguely describe one, never mind analyse it logically. The default position of non-believers is mainly fairly casual rejection of the story told. For those of us who have thought about it the position is considered rejection; not a positive belief that no gods exist anywhere, but a denial of the stories told so far. You can reject this as much as you like but it will just result in more wasted time and pointless attempts to start a fight with a straw man.”

The topic is, Is there Evidence for Atheism. That is all I have ever asked for. I am talking about Atheism, not Agnosticism. I have abused no one. Show me where.

I didn’t learn my religion from my parents and I know many others also. What does this genetic fallacy have to do with anything?

More typical name calling from you.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Whether you misrepresent what people say because you can't actually understand them, or, as I suspect, you do it willfully, doesn't really matter a lot. You have serially misrepresented people so as to give yourself an opening for preaching at them on the subject of your constant choice, your own moral and intellectual superiority. You must be very inadequate to put so much effort into such intricately worked trolling. Compare what I actually said with what your reply implies I said. No names were called anywhere.

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47: |"The only attempt you make at justifying your abuse of atheists and agnostics is your denial of their positions. The fantasy atheist you want to argue with, presumably because you have some sophistic arguments to use up, is not really here, so you tell people that they don't really know what they think and abuse the people you want them to be instead.
In the real world nobody springs up as a ready made atheist or christian or anything else. The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions. Most people don't ever give it much thought. For many I suspect that it is a slow process of realising that the stories you've been told are a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense. Even at that level most people don't actually consider the so-called proofs of god's existence. Most people couldn't even vaguely describe one, never mind analyse it logically. The default position of non-believers is mainly fairly casual rejection of the story told. For those of us who have thought about it the position is considered rejection; not a positive belief that no gods exist anywhere, but a denial of the stories told so far. You can reject this as much as you like but it will just result in more wasted time and pointless attempts to start a fight with a straw man.”

The topic is, Is there Evidence for Atheism. That is all I have ever asked for. I am talking about Atheism, not Agnosticism. I have abused no one. Show me where.

I didn’t learn my religion from my parents and I know many others also. What does this genetic fallacy have to do with anything?

More typical name calling from you.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Whether you misrepresent what people say because you can't actually understand them, or, as I suspect, you do it willfully, doesn't really matter a lot. You have serially misrepresented people so as to give yourself an opening for preaching at them on the subject of your constant choice, your own moral and intellectual superiority. You must be very inadequate to put so much effort into such intricately worked trolling. Compare what I actually said with what your reply implies I said. No names were called anywhere.

You just said:
1. I abused atheists and agnostics.
2. I deny others positions.
3. I tell people they don’t know what they think.
4. Religious people learn only what their parents teach them ( a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense ) while atheists think their way to truth.
5. I misrepresent people so I can preach at then.
6. I am inadequate.
7. I am trolling.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Then you say:
“Compare what I actually said with what your reply implies I said. No names were called anywhere.”

Really!!!!

[Vardarac]

Could it be you a skeptic truing to change the subject in a topic on Atheism by asking questions on theism.

I see. So you appear to think an absence of evidence for theism does not reasonably imply atheism, nor do you think correlations between god-belief and the falsity of other obviously imaginary concepts suggest atheism. As I have explained through analogy, summation of known experience absent the concept being searched for is evidence for the tentative null hypothesis.

If it weren't for your personal experience, I would have stuck to my position that your standards of logic and evidence for belief are inconsistent between God and other concepts.

In addition, it would appear that you think the levels of evidence for theism and the evidence for atheism are unrelated. But they are related, inextricably so. Your denial, your dismissal of this as off-topic does not change that fact.

Finally, I have named at least one proposition that, if true, would falsify at least some interpretations of theism. In fact, we already know that the vast majority of interpretations of theism are false. This shows that atheism has at least a wide degree of truth with respect to most of the "tried" forms of theism; but for reasons that I have already explained, the evidence that can be accumulated for atheism (that is, falsifying theism) is limited due to goalpost shifting and reinterpretation of theism.

If you were on topic I replied to you and I will. What straw man? Show me.

You have variously accused me of trying to divert from the topic, of implying that negatives can never be proven (which I haven't - just this particular negative, because it literally means you'd have to have knowledge outside of the known universe), and of discussing theism rather than atheism. These are mischaracterizations of my position.

Edited by Vardarac, 05 April 2014 - 08:26 PM.

[johnross47]

Johnross47: |"The only attempt you make at justifying your abuse of atheists and agnostics is your denial of their positions. The fantasy atheist you want to argue with, presumably because you have some sophistic arguments to use up, is not really here, so you tell people that they don't really know what they think and abuse the people you want them to be instead.
In the real world nobody springs up as a ready made atheist or christian or anything else. The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions. Most people don't ever give it much thought. For many I suspect that it is a slow process of realising that the stories you've been told are a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense. Even at that level most people don't actually consider the so-called proofs of god's existence. Most people couldn't even vaguely describe one, never mind analyse it logically. The default position of non-believers is mainly fairly casual rejection of the story told. For those of us who have thought about it the position is considered rejection; not a positive belief that no gods exist anywhere, but a denial of the stories told so far. You can reject this as much as you like but it will just result in more wasted time and pointless attempts to start a fight with a straw man.”

The topic is, Is there Evidence for Atheism. That is all I have ever asked for. I am talking about Atheism, not Agnosticism. I have abused no one. Show me where.

I didn’t learn my religion from my parents and I know many others also. What does this genetic fallacy have to do with anything?

More typical name calling from you.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Whether you misrepresent what people say because you can't actually understand them, or, as I suspect, you do it willfully, doesn't really matter a lot. You have serially misrepresented people so as to give yourself an opening for preaching at them on the subject of your constant choice, your own moral and intellectual superiority. You must be very inadequate to put so much effort into such intricately worked trolling. Compare what I actually said with what your reply implies I said. No names were called anywhere.

You just said:
1. I abused atheists and agnostics.
2. I deny others positions.
3. I tell people they don’t know what they think.
4. Religious people learn only what their parents teach them ( a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense ) while atheists think their way to truth.
5. I misrepresent people so I can preach at then.
6. I am inadequate.
7. I am trolling.
http://www.longecity...150#entry648240

Then you say:
“Compare what I actually said with what your reply implies I said. No names were called anywhere.”

Really!!!!

This is getting to the point where it is too long to be worth quoting and requoting, but ;
1. 2. and 3. are pretty undeniably true. I've lost count of the number of times I and many others have accused you, justifiably, of this. e.g. see 4. next.
4. Both versions are right here to see. I said, "The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions." You misrepresent that above as, "Religious people learn only what their parents teach them ( a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense ) while atheists think their way to truth."
5. What other hidden motive do you have?
6. I am making a query in suppositive form. Yes it's a bit insulting but does that surprise you? When you treat people the way you do it's amazing that so many people stay polite.
7. If you want to argue about that you'll be in a minority of one.

[shadowhawk]

Could it be you a skeptic truing to change the subject in a topic on Atheism by asking questions on theism.

I see. So you appear to think an absence of evidence for theism does not reasonably imply atheism, nor do you think correlations between god-belief and the falsity of other obviously imaginary concepts suggest atheism. As I have explained through analogy, summation of known experience absent the concept being searched for is evidence for the tentative null hypothesis.

If it weren't for your personal experience, I would have stuck to my position that your standards of logic and evidence for belief are inconsistent between God and other concepts.

In addition, it would appear that you think the levels of evidence for theism and the evidence for atheism are unrelated. But they are related, inextricably so. Your denial, your dismissal of this as off-topic does not change that fact.

Finally, I have named at least one proposition that, if true, would falsify at least some interpretations of theism. In fact, we already know that the vast majority of interpretations of theism are false. This shows that atheism has at least a wide degree of truth with respect to most of the "tried" forms of theism; but for reasons that I have already explained, the evidence that can be accumulated for atheism (that is, falsifying theism) is limited due to goalpost shifting and reinterpretation of theism.

If you were on topic I replied to you and I will. What straw man? Show me.

You have variously accused me of trying to divert from the topic, of implying that negatives can never be proven (which I haven't - just this particular negative, because it literally means you'd have to have knowledge outside of the known universe), and of discussing theism rather than atheism. These are mischaracterizations of my position.

Your vote is you can't come up with any evidence for Atheism. OK.

[shadowhawk]

johnross47 1. 2. and 3. are pretty undeniably true. I've lost count of the number of times I and many others have accused you, justifiably, of this. e.g. see 4. next. SH: Accusing someone if something does not make it true.
4. Both versions are right here to see. I said, "The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions." You misrepresent that above as, "Religious people learn only what their parents teach them ( a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense ) while atheists think their way to truth." SH: you said it, not me. Its false, nonsense
5. What other hidden motive do you have? SH; Childish games...not interested. Another logical fallacy.
6. I am making a query in suppositive form. Yes it's a bit insulting but does that surprise you? When you treat people the way you do it's amazing that so many people stay polite.
7. If you want to argue about that you'll be in a minority of one. SH: I don’t want to argue with a thought disorder.

[Vardarac]

Your vote is you can't come up with any evidence for Atheism. OK.

I have given you evidence of atheism for all practical intents and purposes. If you refuse to discuss or acknowledge it, then this is not a discussion, it's a years-long exercise in stroking your own ego and annoying the hell out of the rest of us.

Edited by Vardarac, 06 April 2014 - 12:23 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Your vote is you can't come up with any evidence for Atheism. OK.

I have given you evidence of atheism for all practical intents and purposes. If you refuse to discuss or acknowledge it, then this is not a discussion, it's a years-long exercise in stroking your own ego and annoying the hell out of the rest of us.

You are talking different stories out of both sides of your mouth.

[Vardarac]

You are talking different stories out of both sides of your mouth.

I'll make this as simple for you as I can.

We have good reason, evidence, to think most (if not all) presented forms of theism are false. I have presented this evidence.

This is different from disproving every imaginable form of theism. That can't be done, but using that as if to say atheism is an irrational belief is plain silly.

Edited by Vardarac, 06 April 2014 - 12:39 AM.

[shadowhawk]

You are talking different stories out of both sides of your mouth.

I'll make this as simple for you as I can.

We have good reason, evidence, to think most (if not all) presented forms of theism are false. I have presented this evidence.

This is different from disproving every imaginable form of theism. That can't be done, but using that as if to say atheism is an irrational belief is plain silly.

Again, you are off topic. Rave on.

[shadowhawk]

USER AGREED, FORUM USE GUIDELINES AND RULES.
We all agreed to these when we joined. Do a search on “guidelines.”

Article 1
“The following shall be the letter of the agreement that all visitors, Members and their guests will be asked to abide by when interacting with the LongeCity("ImmInst") website: Please read this Agreement carefully before accessing the Site.” http://www.longecity.../feature/bylawA

Article 1
Section03 Content
“You understand that by using the Site, you may be exposed to Content that you may deem offensive, indecent or objectionable.” (Including religious, philosophical or political views)

Section06 Basic Prohibitions
“ Personal threats to anybody, whether or not that person is using the Site.”

“g) Interacting with the Site in such a way as to seriously impair the functioning or usability of the Site including but not limited to excessive contribution of irrelevant Content;”

Section09 Posting Guidelines
“(a) Users must agree to consider the posting guidelines as specified in Article
2. Adherence to these guidelines is monitored by ImmInst Moderators, Directors and other designated Officers”

Article 2 Posting Guidelines:
http://www.longecity.../feature/bylawA

“Section01 A-- General tone of conversations
Also under no circumstances should you employ personal judgments or remarks about people themselves rather than their arguments. Aside from the fact that such judgments are more often than not ill founded, they drag down the overall quality of the discussion as well as costing time and space.”

“Section04 D-- Replying to topics
(a) D.1-- Please ask yourself "Does my reply offer a significant contribution?"
(b) D.2-- It is critical that you try to keep follow-up posts on topic. Avoid going off on a different tangent. If it occurs to you that this might be another thread, open a new thread and put a link to it in the old one
© D.3-- As an extension of the previous point, do not derail a topic with fundamental critique....
(e) D.5-- There is usually no benefit for people in reading that you agree unless you give an explanation to go with it.
f) D.6-- ...If someone posts a link or uploads an article- read it before you go on. Also read the posts of your predecessors and be aware of related discussions elsewhere”
---------------------------------

[Jeoshua]

That wasn't off topic, at all Shadowhawk. It is you who is off topic. The title of the thread is not "why is everyone other than shadowhawk wrong". The title of the thread is "Is there evidence for Atheism" which that post just addressed. Your response, with all that legalese from the site guidelines, is the one what is off topic.

[shadowhawk]

That wasn't off topic, at all Shadowhawk. It is you who is off topic. The title of the thread is not "why is everyone other than shadowhawk wrong". The title of the thread is "Is there evidence for Atheism" which that post just addressed. Your response, with all that legalese from the site guidelines, is the one what is off topic.

The response in question, addressed Theism, not Atheism. Tell me how that is on topic. We need to follow the guidelines. Don't like the topic? Start another rather than derail this one.

Edited by shadowhawk, 06 April 2014 - 01:08 AM.

[Jeoshua]

We have good reason, evidence, to think most (if not all) presented forms of theism are false.

Hence Vardarac is saying that he is not theist. Atheist. And that he has evidence that he presented earlier as to why.

That's how it's on topic, and that's what you're not getting. You don't get to redefine the conversation or ignore his words, then claim he's not following the forum guidelines, and come out of it as the winner of the conversation. That's intellectually dishonest.

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to do then write this whole thread off as a long troll and be done with it.

[Vardarac]

I will try this one last time.

1. You define atheism as the belief that gods do not exist.
2. You go on to say that it is hypocritical and irrational of atheists to say that theists are irrational to believe without evidence when atheists have no evidence that gods do not exist.
3. If, however, for all practical intents and purposes, theism is false, thus no gods thus conceived are real, then atheism is, for all practical intents and purposes, true.
4. Therefore, evidence falsifying theism is evidence that atheism is true.
5. Therefore, my posts are on-topic.

In addition, and distinct from the previous points,
1. If theism has not been proven true, it does not mean atheism is true.
2. However, it implies that atheism is true based on the precedent of experience, until valid evidence is presented in favor of theism.
3. Therefore, if no valid evidence exists for theism, then this absence of evidence holds as valid evidence for atheism until such a time that evidence in favor of theism is presented and validated.
4. Therefore, my posts are on-topic.

If you persist in your stating that it is irrational to believe that something does not exist without evidence that completely disproves that something in every way, shape, or form, then you are basically saying that it is irrational to disbelieve in:

- Mice in your attic
- Aliens
- Ghosts
- Vampires
- Leprechauns
- The Matrix
- The boogeyman
- Every conspiracy theory ever
- Brain parasites and the government controlling your thoughts
- The existence of any conceivable threat at any conceivable time
- Any potential cause, real or fictional, of fear for one's life

I will take any further posts following the usual formula I have come to expect from you as a concession of the debate concerning the nature of evidence for atheism. I will also take it as the acknowledgement that your argument amounts to calling the rejection of abject paranoia of things not in evidence an irrational prospect.

It must be scary living in your world.

Edited by Vardarac, 06 April 2014 - 01:56 AM.

[shadowhawk]

We have good reason, evidence, to think most (if not all) presented forms of theism are false.

Hence Vardarac is saying that he is not theist. Atheist. And that he has evidence that he presented earlier as to why.

That's how it's on topic, and that's what you're not getting. You don't get to redefine the conversation or ignore his words, then claim he's not following the forum guidelines, and come out of it as the winner of the conversation. That's intellectually dishonest.

If you can't see that, I don't know what else to do then write this whole thread off as a long troll and be done with it.

Earlier, Vardrac wanted to change the topic to attacking theism. That is not on topic and is a red herring. You are saying the same thing. I am not the one redefining the topic nor ignoring it. This is clearly against the rules and guidelines.

Nor, am I intellectually dishonest for saying, “Stay on topic.” If you can’t see that, then go ahead and write the topic off. That does not make it a long troll. In fact, read the entire topic and tell me Atheists have not been given a fair deal. Neither they, nor Vardrac have produced any evidence for Atheism.

[shadowhawk]

I will try this one last time.

1. You define atheism as the belief that gods do not exist.
2. You go on to say that it is hypocritical and irrational of atheists to say that theists are irrational to believe without evidence when atheists have no evidence that gods do not exist.
3. If, however, for all practical intents and purposes, theism is false, thus no gods thus conceived are real, then atheism is, for all practical intents and purposes, true.
4. Therefore, evidence falsifying theism is evidence that atheism is true.
5. Therefore, my posts are on-topic.

If you persist in your stating that it is irrational to believe that something does not exist without evidence that completely disproves that something in every way, shape, or form, then you are basically saying that it is irrational to disbelieve in:

- Mice in your attic
- Aliens
- Ghosts
- Vampires
- Leprechauns
- The Matrix
- The boogeyman
- Every conspiracy theory ever
- Brain parasites and the government controlling your thoughts
- The existence of any conceivable threat at any conceivable time
- Any potential cause, real or fictional, of fear for one's life

I will take any further posts following the usual formula I have come to expect from you as a concession of the debate concerning the nature of evidence for atheism. I will also take it as the acknowledgement that your argument amounts to calling the rejection of abject paranoia of things not in evidence an irrational prospect.

It must be scary living in your world.

Nice red herring. but not believing in those things is not evidence for Atheism. In fact, they prove you can disprove a negative, There is nothing there and the same goes for Atheism. I'll take any response from you as acknowledgement that your position is a thought disorder. What nonsense.

[Jeoshua]

Earlier, Vardrac wanted to change the topic to attacking theism. That is not on topic and is a red herring. You are saying the same thing. I am not the one redefining the topic nor ignoring it. This is clearly against the rules and guidelines.

Nor, am I intellectually dishonest for saying, “Stay on topic.” If you can’t see that, then go ahead and write the topic off. That does not make it a long troll. In fact, read the entire topic and tell me Atheists have not been given a fair deal. Neither they, nor Vardrac have produced any evidence for Atheism.

Nice try, but no.

You asked if there is evidence for atheism, which is defined as the belief that theism is not right. He provided evidence that has proven to him that theism is wrong. That is not "attacking" theism, that is the definition of answering your question and staying on topic.

By giving "evidence for atheism", that is requiring one to give evidence for why theism is not correct.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"?

Edited by Jeoshua, 06 April 2014 - 02:16 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Earlier, Vardrac wanted to change the topic to attacking theism. That is not on topic and is a red herring. You are saying the same thing. I am not the one redefining the topic nor ignoring it. This is clearly against the rules and guidelines.

Nor, am I intellectually dishonest for saying, “Stay on topic.” If you can’t see that, then go ahead and write the topic off. That does not make it a long troll. In fact, read the entire topic and tell me Atheists have not been given a fair deal. Neither they, nor Vardrac have produced any evidence for Atheism.

Nice try, but no.

You asked if there is evidence for atheism, which is defined as the belief that theism is not right. He provided evidence that has proven to him that theism is wrong. That is not "attacking" theism, that is the definition of answering your question and staying on topic.

By giving "evidence for atheism", that is requiring one to give evidence for why theism is not correct.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it"?

Where did he provide evidence for atheism?

[Jeoshua]

Obviously, given that Atheism is not a thing, but a belief system, he has given very good evidence for Atheism by being an Atheist.

See, I can switch definitions mid-discussion too, to good effect.

More specifically, when giving his reasons for thinking that Theism is wrong, he provided this evidence for the opposite of that, Atheism.

You can play mind games with this all you want, and if you are trying to prove that playing with the definitions of words, and moving the goal post, can make a conversation go on for years without end, and still nobody wins the conversation, then I must say you have succeeded.

[shadowhawk]

SUMMARY OF IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM???
http://www.longecity...360#entry621042

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
Atheists are agnostics?
http://www.longecity...360#entry639932
http://www.longecity...360#entry639934
http://www.longecity...450#entry646771
http://www.longecity...480#entry647374
http://www.longecity...480#entry647612

2. Atheism isn’t a belief so needs no evidence.?
http://www.longecity...ism/#entry50282
http://www.longecity...390#entry643370
http://www.longecity...420#entry644763
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126

3. You can’t prove a negative?
http://www.longecity...sm/#entry503352
http://www.longecity...390#entry643348
http://www.longecity...390#entry643387
http://www.longecity...420#entry645126
http://www.longecity...450#entry646451

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
http://www.longecity...450#entry645224

5. Ockham’s Razor?
http://www.longecity..._30#entry504306

6. Absence Of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504592
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940
http://www.longecity...450#entry646751
http://www.longecity...480#entry646899
http://www.longecity...480#entry646940
http://www.longecity...480#entry647372

7. Demands of Evidentialism, summary ?
http://www.longecity..._60#entry504785
http://www.longecity..._60#entry505663

8. Both sides, top Atheist and Theists present their cases.
http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480984
http://www.longecity...nd/#entry480983

9. Presumption of Atheism.
http://www.longecity...120#entry507260

10. Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://www.longecity...150#entry508469

11. WHY ARE THERE ATHEISTS?
http://www.longecity...360#entry635632

12. ATHEISM IS NOT AGNOSTICISM.
http://www.longecity...450#entry645614
http://www.longecity...480#entry647581
http://www.longecity...480#entry647761
http://www.longecity...480#entry647765
http://www.longecity...480#entry647906
http://www.longecity...510#entry648928

Guidelines for the use of the forem
http://www.longecity...ad/#entry428913
http://www.longecity...180#entry629606

up to post 581

Obviously, given that Atheism is not a thing, but a belief system, he has given very good evidence for Atheism by being an Atheist.

See, I can switch definitions mid-discussion too, to good effect.

More specifically, when giving his reasons for thinking that Theism is wrong, he provided this evidence for the opposite of that, Atheism.

You can play mind games with this all you want, and if you are trying to prove that playing with the definitions of words, and moving the goal post, can make a conversation go on for years without end, and still nobody wins the conversation, then I must say you have succeeded.

He claims he is not an atheist.

[Jeoshua]

Personally I don't consider myself an Atheist either, nor a Theist, or an Agnostic. Mainly because I find too much wonder in the world to believe any of them could be right, with their constant squabbling over whether their particular bearded hero, be he Jesus or Moses or even Darwin, is the one who had all the answers.

[johnross47]

johnross47 1. 2. and 3. are pretty undeniably true. I've lost count of the number of times I and many others have accused you, justifiably, of this. e.g. see 4. next. SH: Accusing someone if something does not make it true.
4. Both versions are right here to see. I said, "The believers overwhelmingly learn their religion from their parents; converts are, thankfully few; but agnostics and atheists tend to drift gradually into their positions." You misrepresent that above as, "Religious people learn only what their parents teach them ( a heap of inconsistent, illogical and often downright unpleasant nonsense ) while atheists think their way to truth." SH: you said it, not me. Its false, nonsense
5. What other hidden motive do you have? SH; Childish games...not interested. Another logical fallacy.
6. I am making a query in suppositive form. Yes it's a bit insulting but does that surprise you? When you treat people the way you do it's amazing that so many people stay polite.
7. If you want to argue about that you'll be in a minority of one. SH: I don’t want to argue with a thought disorder.

Quite extraordinary. Even when the two versions are there side by side you can deny reality. By the way it wasn't me who voted your post down. Significant?

[Jeoshua]

I just want to leave the thread with a point.

It doesn't matter what the intent was in starting this thread. This "discussion" will end where every single discussion of its kind ends on every forum in all the world: in flames. This is not a conversation that can even be had, and reach a resolution. Why? Because nobody will ever accept the other side's evidence as valid.

Would anyone ever stop being an Atheist because of something that The Bible said? No.
Why? Because they don't believe the Bible is a true source of information, just another book, and one that has been contradicted many times. The Atheist position is that no matter what it says, it is not evidence of anything except that some people wrote a book.

Would anyone ever stop being Christian because of something a scientist of any branch said? No.
Why? Because it didn't come from the Bible or, at the very least, a religious leader. If it's not divinely inspired, it fails their test for "truth", and divine inspiration can be proven by how well it agrees with what is already known about the divine.

This has been proven repeatedly here. As soon as one side feels they have an upper hand of any sort, the other side flips the script and dumps all their arguments off the table in one fell swoop because they do not fit the paradigm they are attempting to put forth. Ideology and conversation do not, and can not, go hand in hand, especially when one side or the other gets offended and feels attacked when asked to answer why they are not a member of that side. If I ask a Christian why they are not Atheist, their answer would offend an Atheist because they would almost assuredly say things that are so wrong about Atheism as to make Richard Dawkins cringe and rant and rave. And if I ask an Atheist why he is not Christian, his answer will definitely offend a Christan, because it will be about all the reasons that he is not Christian, and what bothers him about Christians.

You can't turn this kind of polar disagreement into an intellectual conversation where people come out the other side better. As most, people will be blowing the hot air of well-intentioned points into a vacuum of misunderstanding.

I leave with this:

Arguing on the Internet is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon will poop all over the board, knock over all the pieces, and strut about as if he has won.

[johnross47]

That's probably true Jeoshua. I personally find the questions interesting in several ways but unless somebody comes up with a surprising new argument, I'm unlikely to change my present position. The old theist arguments are all disproved. There is not, and probably cannot be, a positive argument for disbelief, but there doesn't need to be. If you treat atheism, however you define it, as a rejection of the theist position, as most people here do, then a positive proof is not needed. All that's left is the frustrating and fruitless process of trying to persuade SH to accept that position. It won't happen.