Atheism Examined

On the subject of addressing arguments, why haven't you responded to any one of the 70 or so posts already in this thread, many of which deal with the false construction of so-called "strong atheism"? I've already explained in several instances how the "weak/strong" dichotomy fails to accurately describe atheism as its practiced? I heard what you said, the first time. Why didn't you hear me when I told you that atheists don't believe what you say they believe?Since there's no "evidence from God", I don't know what you're talking about. There's absolutely no evidence for God whatsoever, from God or from any other source.If you're asking why atheists believe believers are mistaken about the existence of God - it's not that we believe that they must be mistaken, we just believe that they are mistaken.Like I said keep beating on your straw-atheist. When you're prepared to discuss atheists that actually exist you'll find many posts in this thread worth responding to. Or did you think the discussion doesn't start until you show up?

Wow, you really are an asshole, aren't you? Because I didn't read them. I only responded to the OP, no? So I'm mistaken that Secular Humanists attribute the belief in gods to natural causes? LOL, my point exactly. "I don't see the evidence so it doesn't exist." Looks like the Argument from Incredulity in a way even though I realize that is not considered it. Myabe I'll go back and read your posts and respond to those, but if you feel like nit-picking the semantics in my posts anyways...feel free.

You are mistaken on both counts. Logic is a GIGO machine, a sausage grinder that can produce great links or pure baloney. Expecting it to deliver certainty is a profound error. I think your strong v. weak distinction muddies the water around what 'belief' means.But, no, even taking your term at face value, 'strong' atheism is not illogical.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I guess that's where our difference of oppinion occurs. I don't think the result is the same.Being ignorant of something is not the same as disbelieving something you are knowlegeble of, IMHO.

I just get tired of having to repeat myself.You know, like I've had to do since you started participating in this thread. Is there something wrong with your web browser that prevented you from reading the previous 70 posts? Or are you simply under the impression that the debate begins and ends with you? No, but that's not what you said, is it? Additionally, it's improper to conflate secular humanism with atheism. While it's true that secular humanists are typically atheists, not all atheists are secular humanists. Do I have do draw the Venn diagram for you? What evidence am I not seeing? If you've presented any, it hasn't been in this thread or in any other you've participated in.Tell me, CS, is it typical of true things that they're supported by unspecified, invisible "evidence"? Or rather, isn't that more typically true of things that are false?One of the reasons that I'm an atheist is that even theists don't act like theism is true. Why does every theist act like they have something to hide when it comes to theism?

That's fine. We can agree on that point. How so?I find a distinction between a positive disblief and a lack of belief in the same as there is a distinction between -1 and 0. How so?How can you logically conclude that it is a fact that something does not exists?

Why? What's the difference? If a claim isn't supported by evidence, why does it matter whether or not you heard the claim in the first place? Whether or not you know about the claim has nothing to do with its veracity.

Then don't reply to post that address argument that you have already responded to. No. I just replied to the opening post without reading a single other post in the thread. Is there something wrong with that? Must I read the whole thread before replying to the OP? Nope, that's what I said. I didn't. Sorry for breaking the rule, but I was responding to you personally, knowing your beliefs. Again. La-la-la, I don't see the evidence. Its just like the Argument from Incredulity.Of course the onus is on me to provide evidence if I wanted to be persuasive, but we are simply defining "atheism", not proving god exists. It is typical of true things that they're supported by specific, visible evidence.It is typical of false things to be supported by unspecific, invisible "evidence".Happy now?This has nothing to do with the logical support for "Strong Atheism", even if that is not what the majority of atheist, in general, believe. Lack of evidence is NOT evidense of absense as we all know, logically. We don't have anything to hide from each other. We only have a "percieved" thing to hide from people who reject the "evidence" a prioiri. But of course that is practically meaningless to atheists.

Because "I" am the one forming the belief.It doesn't have anything to do with the truth of the claim.

LOL! Yeah, it'd be helpful. If you had, you'd know that I've already addressed this: And this (Suffice to say, absence of evidence is evidence of absence by any accepted evidentiary standard. It's understood that this reasoning is logically fallacious, but so is all scientific reasoning.) I can't reject what hasn't been presented. You don't even claim to have presented any evidence! How can it possibly be meaningful to claim that atheists are rejecting "a priori" what you admit you haven't even put forth? I mean, what exactly are atheists rejecting?

If you meant to say that your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the truth, as you just said, then yes, I agree with you completely. It's in fact quite obvious that what you decide to believe has nothing to do with the truth.

For practical purposes, yes. You just conceded my point about "Strong Atheism".Now, onto the point about actual atheism.... Any edvidence that I would present (for the existance of something supernatural) would be automatically attributed to something natural, a priori, by the definitions of your belief so you can't even be "presented" with evidence in the first place.P.S. I'm going to bed now. Further replies will be tomorrow if I have time

LOL, is that your way of admitting that you were wrong?

Which is why, for practical purposes, people are atheists.Do you see, now, how talking about "strong atheism" has been a strawman all along? Apparently you do. This doesn't make a lick of sense.Tell me, CS - is it typically a feature of things that are true that the best their proponents can muster is to say "I'd tell you but you wouldn't believe me"? Isn't that, in fact, something people say when they're trying to lie?Like I said before - why do theists always act like they have something to hide? You don't read so well, I guess. What I just said is that you are wrong.

Why does everything in life need to be examined via the scientific method? Can't we trust each other anymore?
If I knew you and ordinarily thought you to be rational and sane, and one day you reported that you had what you thought to be an unverifiable experience (UFO or something)why would I be wrong to trust you pending further validation? Why would I assume you were suddenly daft?

​

To me, absence of evidence is simply inconclusive. I would never go so far as to claim that you had to be mistaken.