What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

I saw a back and forth on the argument from ignorance. Claiming that something is proved untrue, based on a lack of positive evidence is an AoI. Here's something on it from The Skeptic's Dictionary... Just keep in mind that doubt, or not believing in, is not the same as denial. Hence you can doubt, or just not believe in the existence of Gods based on a lack of evidence. You simply can't take one step further to claim knowledge that there isn't.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Check my post right above yours. I clarified the rules on arguments from ignorance from a source I'd hope most would trust (especially atheists).I'm not sure if crash said he knows or he doubts, or simply doesn't believe, so I'm not making a judgment call, just laying out the rules.I don't believe, and on many particular religions have serious doubts. But ultimately I don't know... and most of the time I don't care. I've heard the term apatheist bandied about recently. I may be more or less one of them.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Like I said, I wasn't trying to pass a judgement because I didn't see what you had said, just commenting on what an argument from ignorance is. Since you state here that you don't claim certainty then I don't see that there's any problem.However... just a nitpick... I would question if you can be AS certain that there are no Gods as that there's no milk in your fridge.The reason being that your fridge is in one finite place and so is the milk carton. You can open both and run complete tests on the total available area where the milk might be... and indeed know what milk is defined as.The scope of human "vision" into the entire area that these Gods might be, much less our understanding of how we'd have to test for them or what they are defined as, is terribly minute and limited in comparison.So I think you can reach a much greater certainty on the presence of milk than whether Gods are around... though for all practical purposes there might as well not be any Gods. At least you know where to go when you need milk, whether you're out of it or not.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Uh... bleh. I think you're pretty much right about the milk, but then again you might say to your wife "we're out", she might just say "are you suuuuurrrre?" and she'd be right in demanding you search the whole fridge for absolute certainty... and with milk that's something you CAN deliver.With Gods it doesn't seem to be so easy. We still don't have an ability to find all the minute and massive particles in the nonsupernatural concept of the universe. Heck, dark matter and energy (if they are real) suggest that the range of our detection capabilities (for all real things) are still very limited.But then again, I guess you can always say you can't find Gods in your corner of the fridge of life... heheheh.By the way have you heard of apatheism. I heard of it from... Bill Maher I think. I think its more accurate for many "atheists" since it captures the "I don't know of any Gods" part with a side of "I don't really care".

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Wait, let's make this clear. I am not criticizing your position of doubt regarding Gods. I was simply nitpicking on the statement that doubt was as certain as knowing you're out of milk.I agree that if someone is asserting they exist, they need to show something. But there is the logical possibility either way, and the universe is pretty enormous... way beyond our current detection limits. That means we're still in for lots of surprises. I think that's what makes science pretty fun.Maybe a God or two will fall out at some point.Of course the more people try to prove a specific pantheon exists, with defined characteristics, the easier it is to put it under a microscope. I think that's why we end up with the mushy presence you described. Sort of tells they don't know what they're talking about. Heheheh... yeah but they're GODs didn't do it! So I can still be apathetic about Gods. Now theists... I can't be apathetic about them.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I meant to say I can't be apathetic about THEIR EXISTENCE. Unlike their Gods, I do believe they exist and I do care they are out there. Not that I think all of them are bad or something. Many of them are very nice and helpful.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Wait, wha'd I do wrong? Honestly. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or something with that answer, just clarifying what my lack of apathy was referring to. I thought you had taken it to mean something negative toward them.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard