What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

Sorry Ray but nothing in your post is related to the question I asked.Is that like asking what the positive evidence for not believing in the tooth fairy?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This is the answer of an Atheist denying that evolution is positive evidence for Atheism.First, just overlook the fact of a substanceless one-line and illogical three word denial. Second, it is refuted by the fact that this person is an Atheist-evolutionist and therefore it is not a matter of opinion: they support evolution because they believe and know that if it is true then their worldview (Atheism) is supported.Why would an Atheist-evolutionist deny evolution to support their worldview (and by implication say that it supports the existence of God)?Answer: what choice do they have since that would make Christian evolutionists the biggest dopes and fools imaginable. Instead, our Atheist-evolutionist chooses to bear false witness brazenly and insult everyones intelligence. Then the Text is not God inspired (as per the claim) but man-made. Atheist admits that evolution claims to refute the existence of God and that the same is positive evidence for Atheism worldview.I retract the observation that our Atheist-evolutionist was bearing false witness.Ray

Nemesis
Juggernaut How about you explain to the audience and myself just how you acquire positive evidence of non- existence NJ? As I have said and will repeat God does not exist unless and until he does. That is to say positive evidence of existence is required because there is no way to produce positive evidence of non-existence since lack of evidence is a main feature of non- existence.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Cold Foreign
ObjectYou do not have an explanation do you?

I thought you were a Christian, have you converted to Atheism recently? Christians make the same claims about 'senses' and their positive effect as evidence. Your comments, if I am understanding correctly, says Atheists reject sense apparatus. This is false. Everyone relies upon sense apparatus to evaluate the world and evidence. I am probably misunderstanding you, though.Your commentary, if I do understand it, is what philosophically trained persons call 'rhetoric.'It sounds good but it dodges the question by arguing that the generic apparatus that all worldviews rely upon to justify their worldview (inner 'senses') is not positive evidence. No, that is a subjective and predictable assertion or like I said: it is the misuse of logic known as rhetoric, the tool of lawyers, who we know are professional liars.Ray

That's odd. You know what just popped into my mind? A cuckoo clock that an aunt owned when I was a kid. I wonder what made me think of that?

---

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

Wow, the list of errors that you made in that one little post is impressive. Unless you define recently to include 20 years ago, you are wrong. You are wrong. My comment describes how atheists rely on their senses and their reasoning to conclude that there is not god. I made this point to refute the claim you made in a prior post that atheism relies on blind faith. Instead, atheism relies on senses and reasoning. Your third mistake. There is no other profession who lies less often in their profession than lawyers. If you can find another profession that routinely disciplines members, and sometimes bars them from the practice of their profession, for lying, point it out to me.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Yes, for logical things. If someone said that there was an elephant in the adjacent room, and I entered that room, I would logically expect to see an elephant. However, if someone said to me, there is a flea in that room, I probably wouldn't expect to see that flea in the room.Why?Because I have to account for the nature of the thing. You can't just very well say, that you expect to see wind. If you don't see wind, is it not real? Or are you giving it a false body? I show you tree branches swaying wildly, and you say, I didn't see any wind. All I saw were tree branches swaying. Therefore, there's no such thing as wind, only branches that sway!One must obviously take in to account the nature of something before making assumptions based on blanket conditions. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Quite true.Thus, given that most religions ascribe to their deity the ability and the tendency to use supernatural powers, the fact that no compelling evidence for the use of any supernatural powers has ever been found is evidence that no such being exists, exactly the same as the elephant in the next room that you can't see.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And yet, my wife has a sizable collection of fleas - in her entomology library, you wags - so clearly we're able to ascertain the presence or absence of fleas.Similarly, I doubt you're trying to say that God is a flea. We're talking about the putative creator of existence, who nonetheless is supposed to be taking a very personal interest in what we're doing, and intervenes in human affairs according to his plan.So we're not talking about a flea. We're talking about something that makes a pretty big difference. That big difference is how we know the difference between God existing and not existing, and how we can conclude that God does not exist. Oh, you do, do you? I didn't see anywhere where you were "accounting for the nature of the thing" when you made the blanket assertion that you could never have evidence that something didn't exist.

Since, like I said, every worldview relies on sense apparatus and reasoning, you have said nothing, except that Atheism has no positive evidence to justify its existence; therefore, according to you - an Atheist - Atheism operates on blind faith (as opposed to Biblical faith which is based on the facts of God's word as written in the Bible). Rhetoric (= the misuse of logic), the tool of lawyers, who we know are professional liars.Ray

Yes, well, as I said earlier in this thread, for you to continue to maintain that atheists rely on blind faith after being clearly told the processes that atheists use is a staggering level of intellectual dishonesty.If your point is that both theists and atheists rely on their senses and reasoning to come to conclusions about the real world, you are undoubtedly correct. However, you seem to go from that proposition back to your original, and demonstrably disproven, position, that atheists rely on blind faith, apparently under some kind of rationale that if theists also rely on their senses and reasoning, we're just not going to count it when atheists do, or something like that. Since you don't really spell out your reasoning for ignoring atheists' use of their senses and reasoning, one is left to speculate how you imagine the argument goes.Perhaps if you spent less time on off target, erroneous, ad hominem attacks and more time thinking about your arguments, you could avoid such fuzzy-headed writing in the future.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I'll take the absence of evidence supporting your position as an admission that you hold the view based on nothing more than blind faith.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Rhetoric.This comment attempts to exempt Atheists from having positive evidence to justify its existence because the writer does not want to admit "we have none, we operate on blind faith."Yet you do have faith that there is no God and that the alleged evidence for God is false. Your faith is perfectly blind without positive evidence, unless you want to admit that evolution is positive evidence for Atheism, but that would slap Christian evolutionists in the face rather hardly. But again it IS NOT a matter of opinion: Atheists believe evolution is their positive evidence. That is the objective truth of the matter and your refusal (I did not say inability) to recognize this axiomatic truth publicly is because that makes your "colleagues" ("Christian" evolutionists) fools of the highest order. This opinion says Atheists have faith that the positive evidence for God is not evidence or it is false, while silently admitting that Atheism has no positive evidence to justify its existence; therefore Atheism, according to Bluegenes, operates on blind faith.We know evolution is the positive evidence for Atheism worldview, rhetorically speaking, why else are all Atheists evolutionists? Here we have an Atheist attempting to fit in within Christians. Why would an Atheist align them self with persons who believe in God?Answer: because the Atheist knows that these Christians are fools who have no source for their Creator views. Atheists accept evolution because it claims to refute the existence of God.Then why doesn't the Atheist cite evolution as positive evidence for his worldview?Answer: Atheists need these Christians or their theory is just Atheist ideology packaged as science.RayEdited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

In case you missed it Ray, the topic is "What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?"Is that the same as asking for Positive Evidence for not believing in the Tooth Fairy? What nonsense, Ray.Most atheists are evolutionists because they are not ignorant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion