Atheism (2)

[createdtoworship]

No

We have not been presented with evidence for a God.

We don't know if evidence for God exists or not. However if it does exist, until we see it we can not justifiably claim God exists.

Kinda like your stance on Leprechauns. You don't know if evidence exists or not, however since you haven't seen any, you don't hold a positive belief in the existence of Leprechauns.

You assume they don't exist because there is no evidence but their is no evidence for the non existence of either leprechauns or our Lord. It is best to say, I don't "know" if God exists, and this would change the definition of atheist to agnostic. And Hence would correct this error.

 

[createdtoworship]

That still isn't a refutation of the definition of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

Again - if you want to change our minds on this, give justification for why we should believe in only your god without evidence. Or give positive evidence for the existence of a god.

You know, the positive assertion you made earlier, and for which the burden of proof is on you.

Prove that there are no Gods' since your definition is "a lack of belief in a god or gods"

so prove it,

should be easy.

 

[Gadarene]

but no evidence has been given to the contrary either.

To the contrary of what?

 

[createdtoworship]

To the contrary of what?

I said ""you "believe" there is no evidence for God right?"

you said "No. It´s just that it has yet to be presented to me.
You are invited to present it."

I said but no evidence has been given to the contrary

 

[Gadarene]

Prove that there are no Gods' since your definition is "a lack of belief in a god or gods"

so prove it,

should be easy.

I am not claiming there are definitely no gods. I lack belief in a god or gods because there is no positive evidence for them.

I have not made any claims regarding existence so there is nothing for me to prove.

Yet again, you fail to grasp the point. Claims of existence are separate from claims of belief.

 

[Gadarene]

I said ""you "believe" there is no evidence for God right?"

you said "No. It´s just that it has yet to be presented to me.
You are invited to present it."

I said but no evidence has been given to the contrary

Again, to the contrary of the what?

Do you mean evidence for no gods existing?

 

[createdtoworship]

I am not claiming there are definitely no gods. I lack belief in a god or gods because there is no positive evidence for them.

I have not made any claims regarding existence so there is nothing for me to prove.

Yet again, you fail to grasp the point. Claims of existence are separate from claims of belief.

prove that there isn't any evidence for them.....

so either way, you can't know.....you should be agnostic.

 

[Gadarene]

prove that there isn't any evidence for them.....

Again - I am not going to find, repeat and debunk every stupid argument for God that I've seen in the last several years of arguing against Christians. It would be an inordinately complicated task, and if you were serious about debating - which you aren't because you've been trolling this thread for pages now - you would have to do as much work to respond to each of these claims.

Alternatively - present the best evidence you have for your god, and we'll scrutinise it. If it holds up, we will change our minds. It is a far quicker task, and as you have made the positive claim of existence the burden of proof is on you. It has always been on you.

so either way, you can't know.....you should be agnostic.

Not at all. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a claim about knowledge.

We have defined atheism in terms of a lack of belief.

Our definition makes no claim regarding existence or nonexistence.

Knowledge =/= belief.
Knowledge =/= existence claim.
Belief =/= existence claim.

And again, all you are doing here is relabelling us. This does nothing - nothing - to address the matter of the evidence for the existence of a god. It is an utter red herring.

 

[hoppimike]

I was atheist for about 11 years... pretty much. Now I'm much happier considering myself agnostic, as it allows me a bit more room to learn and encourages me to be more open-minded I think!

My logic for being an atheist was mainly due to a keen interest in science such as evolution, the Big Bang, and so on. I couldn't see where religion fit into all this.

These days I realize that I can investigate religions not just by listening to people speak about "faith" (which is not something I really can associate with as I really need evidence for things I think and believe) but by studying the history of them, such as historical people like Jesus. I think in that way I can better understand different world views and also liberate my mind a bit to new possibilities!

As for discrimination... not here in the UK no. It's like 44% atheist or something, and I reckon about 90% or something or that 44% are younger people anyway (under 30/35s)... so of course as I'm 27 myself I only really interacted with that group at school, and so on. Atheism and agnosticism are both very common here now.

Whether they're correct or not is of course up for debate!!

 

[createdtoworship]

- I am not going to find, repeat and debunk every stupid argument for God that I've seen in the last several years of arguing against Christians. It would be an inordinately complicated task, and if you were serious about debating - which you aren't because you've been trolling this thread for pages now - you would have to do as much work to respond to each of these claims.

but what about the existence for God arguments you have not heard of?

Alternatively - present the best evidence you have for your god, and we'll scrutinise it. If it holds up, we will change our minds. It is a far quicker task, and as you have made the positive claim of existence the burden of proof is on you. It has always been on you.

Not at all. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a claim about knowledge.

We have defined atheism in terms of a lack of belief.

Our definition makes no claim regarding existence or nonexistence.

Knowledge =/= belief.
Knowledge =/= existence claim.
Belief =/= existence claim.

And again, all you are doing here is relabelling us. This does nothing - nothing - to address the matter of the evidence for the existence of a god. It is an utter red herring.

all I am saying is that agnostics are honest enough to know that there is no evidence for atheism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

but no evidence has been given to the contrary either.

Nor has there been for Leprechauns.... But you don't accept those. Why not?

 

[Gadarene]

but what about the existence for God arguments you have not heard of?

Yet again - belief is justified for us on positive evidence currently available, not some hypothetical evidence you're speculating away on.

If you think you actually have evidence for existence of God, then present it. Positive evidence that is currently available is our criterion for justification of belief. Address us based on this criterion, or give us reason to change it.

all I am saying is that agnostics are honest enough to know that there is no evidence for atheism.

How do you have "evidence for atheism"?

It is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

There is no claim of either existence of god or gods (we don't think such a statement is justified); or nonexistence of god or gods (we don't think such a statement is justified).

 

[createdtoworship]

How do you have "evidence for atheism"?

you don't

your right.

thats what I am sayin

 

[createdtoworship]

Nor has there been for Leprechauns.... But you don't accept those. Why not?

I don't know if leprechauns exist on the far side of you universe,

you do?

 

[Dave Ellis]

you don't

your right.

thats what I am sayin

There is no such thing as evidence for a negative position, you're asking for an impossibility.

 

[Gadarene]

you don't

your right.

thats what I am sayin

I'm right about what?

No evidence is required for this definition of atheism as it is not a positive claim. It makes no claims of existence. If we claimed that there were definitely no gods in existence, then evidence would be required for that. Just because we do not claim no gods exist does not mean we are not atheists, because lacking a belief can occur regardless of whether one makes an existence/nonexistence claim or not.

A lack of evidence doesn't mean atheism of this kind is an untenable position, it just means you still haven't grasped what this definition of atheism actually means.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't know if leprechauns exist on the far side of you universe,

you do?

No, I don't know that, and neither do you.

The point is, since we are not aware of any evidence that shows Leprechauns exist, we can not claim a positive belief that they exist.


Do you agree with me so far?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I don't know that, and neither do you.

The point is, since we are not aware of any evidence that shows Leprechauns exist, we can not claim a positive belief that they exist.


Do you agree with me so far?

not really, because we can't claim a negative belief either.


it makes us leprechaun agnostics.

 

[Gadarene]

not really, because we can't claim a negative belief either.

it makes us leprechaun agnostics.

Agnosticism is about knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief.

Just to blow your already taxed mind even further, one can be an agnostic atheist. I.e. you don't have the knowledge, and so you don't have belief.

 

[createdtoworship]

Agnosticism is about knowledge. It has nothing to do with belief.

Just to blow your already taxed mind even further, one can be an agnostic atheist. I.e. you don't have the knowledge, and so you don't have belief.

they are the same basic thing as agnostics.