Atheism (2)

[NailsII]

Recently I have become fascinated by Atheism and Atheistic philosophy.

What exactly is atheistic philosophy?

I want to ask you guys (the Atheist community here) what should Christians know about Atheism?

That we exist, and that we are human beings with the same rights as you theists, and we are no more likely to be axe-murdering evil psychopaths just because our worldview is different,
In fact, the opposite tends to be true.

Are you a weak Atheist or strong Atheist in your terms of views?

Strictly I am an agnostic, I admit that I can never know for certain.
But as there is no evidence for a god, I don't believe that any exist - nor should we have any reason to suggest that they should exist.
On Richard Dawkins 7-point scale, I would put myself as a 6.5, so I am to all intents and purposes a reasonable strong atheist.

What are your opinions on strong Atheism or weak Atheism?

I don't have any opinions on weak or strong atheists, if someone want sto spend their time in the gym that is up to them.

What are your opinions on Religion?

I think it is a hold-over from a time when we didn't know very much about how the universe worked; a time when we had no idea what made storms, floods, disease etc.
But we had a need to try and understand them, and the concept of god was one of our early attempts to rationalise the world around us.

What are your opinions on some of the more famous figures in Atheism today? E.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Micheal Shermer, Stephen Hawkings, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris.

I have enjoyed reading some Dawkins books, his books are a pleasure to read - especially on evolutionary biology.
Christopher Hitchens was just a powerhouse of knowledge, a skilled debator and a solid journalist. I have only read 'god isn't great' but I have seen some of his lectures and debates, and I have enjoyed the fruits of his wisdom.

Have you ever experienced any discrimination for being an Atheist?

Only on here.....

with this definition of atheism that requires evidence of a God to be true.....


but I believe there is no evidence for the lack of God.

so who is right?

How can a definition of atheism require a god to be true?

What exactly is this evidence for god that you think is so convincing?

 

[Eudaimonist]

but I believe there is no evidence for the lack of God.

so who is right?

There's no evidence for the lack of leprechauns, but so what? You're either right or wrong, but if you don't believe in leprechauns, you're justified in lacking belief on the basis of the lack of evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

There's no evidence for the lack of leprechauns, but so what? You're either right or wrong, but if you don't believe in leprechauns, you're justified in lacking belief on the basis of the lack of evidence.


eudaimonia,


Mark

but there is no lack of evidence


a leprechaun could be riding an asteroid at the far corner of the universe.

 

[Skavau]

but there is no lack of evidence


a leprechaun could be riding an asteroid at the far corner of the universe.

Does that mean you believe in leprechauns?

 

[Eudaimonist]

but there is no lack of evidence


a leprechaun could be riding an asteroid at the far corner of the universe.

Your imagination is not evidence.

If you think that there is evidence that a leprechaun is riding an asteroid somewhere, provide that evidence. Otherwise, there is no evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

but there is no lack of evidence


a leprechaun could be riding an asteroid at the far corner of the universe.

This argument has been done to death several times now, give it up.

That's not evidence. That's speculation.

Until evidence is obtained, lack of belief is justifiable. Note: we are NOT saying leprechauns definitely do not exist.

In addition, you still have not justified why belief in God is justifiable despite a lack of evidence.

If you want to justify the claim that leprechauns definitely exist, provide evidence that there IS one on an asteroid somewhere.

 

[createdtoworship]

This argument has been done to death several times now, give it up.

That's not evidence. That's speculation.

Until evidence is obtained, lack of belief is justifiable. Note: we are NOT saying leprechauns definitely do not exist.

In addition, you still have not justified why belief in God is justifiable despite a lack of evidence.

If you want to justify the claim that leprechauns definitely exist, provide evidence that there IS one on an asteroid somewhere.

God could be having tea with a leprechaun in some unexplored galaxy. Along with santa claus. We don't know, either way. Evidence states.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your imagination is not evidence.

If you think that there is evidence that a leprechaun is riding an asteroid somewhere, provide that evidence. Otherwise, there is no evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Just because one person doesn't employ evidence doesn't mean that it does not exist. after all I am only one.

 

[Gadarene]

God could be having tea with a leprechaun in some unexplored galaxy. Along with santa claus. We don't know, either way. Evidence states.

So you consider a lack of evidence to be evidence in favour of santa claus and leprechauns, as well as your god?

All you are saying here is that it might be true. No-one is denying that it might be true, but that is perfectly consistent with lacking belief (and NOT with claiming definitive non-existence).

 

[createdtoworship]

So you consider a lack of evidence to be evidence in favour of santa claus and leprechauns, as well as your god?

All you are saying here is that it might be true. No-one is denying that it might be true, but that is perfectly consistent with lacking belief (and NOT with claiming definitive non-existence).

no, I am not saying either way. You seem to say you can see far enough into space to know factually that there are not leprechauns/santa and God all having tea in the corner of the universe. Where are these photos? (hint we can't see that far).

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just because one person doesn't employ evidence doesn't mean that it does not exist. after all I am only one.

Do you understand what "evidence" is? Please explain the concept to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

no, I am not saying either way. You seem to say you can see far enough into space to know factually that there are not leprechauns/santa and God all having tea in the corner of the universe. Where are these photos? (hint we can't see that far).

Yes, we can.

Go to NASA's website, find some there. You have consistently dodged any attempt to justify your own viewpoints while placing an unreasonable burden of proof on those not making a positive claim. You are not interested in serious debate, so there is no need to spend more time on your posts than I deem necessary.

You have completely ignored the fact that we do not base our beliefs on evidence that might be out there somewhere, we base it on evidence we have.

You have also been running away from the questions I have raised repeatedly.

1. What do you consider to be the best positive evidence for God? Or do you genuinely think that there is no positive evidence for God but belief in God is justified despite there being no positive evidence for him?

2. You at one point in this debate said that the only thing it was acceptable to believe in without evidence is God. Why is this, and why should one consider changing their standards of evidence from one which does not permit belief in the existence anything without positive evidence to one which permits belief in your God despite a lack of positive evidence?

Like I said - you want to be taken seriously here, your call. Start answering these questions.

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay so you are saying that no evidence exists to justify a belief in God

I am saying no evidence exists to justify a belief in NO God.

so we are both right, and that would settle it.

I don't think anyone is arguing there is definately no God.

However, a lack of evidence is justification for not holding a belief in the existence of God, along with anything else.

If I told you there was a pink elephant in your backyard, but you arent allowed to look at your backyard and must accept my claim on faith... you would not believe me because I can not demonstrate it to be true. It would be silly for me to retort that there's no evidence to suggest there isn't a pink elephant in your backyard, so you must accept that there is one.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you understand what "evidence" is? Please explain the concept to me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

wikipedia


now, employ some evidence that leprechauns, santa, and God do not exist.

 

[Gadarene]

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

wikipedia


now, employ some evidence that leprechauns, santa, and God do not exist.

Strawman.

Again.

The same one you've been making for hours now. Try reading posts etc.

No atheist here has asserted that God does not exist, so there is no requirement for them to employ evidence to justify that assertion.

You, by contrast, have asserted that it is justifiable to believe in your God without evidence. Maybe if you care so much about backing up assertions, you should back that one up instead.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist?

If someone claims to be an Atheist and also claims to be angry at god... By definition that person is not an Atheist. He's a Theist who needs a dictionary

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.

wikipedia

I wasn't asking you to quote-mine, but to explain it in your own words.

In any case, evidence is something you "bring to the table" in making a positive assertion. It is something you can show to other people. There is no evidence if you can't show others that evidence. Therefore, your imagination that there might be evidence of leprechauns out there is not evidence. It may simply be dismissed.

now, employ some evidence that leprechauns, santa, and God do not exist.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. You are the one making the positive assertion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Reminds me of an atheist who is mad at God. How can an atheist be mad at something that doesn't exist?

One can be angry at the idea of something and what it makes people do. Doesn't mean they think it actually exists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

but there is no lack of evidence


a leprechaun could be riding an asteroid at the far corner of the universe.

Indeed, he could be... But what justification do you have to believe he is?

 

[Dave Ellis]

God could be having tea with a leprechaun in some unexplored galaxy. Along with santa claus. We don't know, either way. Evidence states.

What does evidence state? You haven't shown any evidence in the above post at all.