I can feel your anger

[Faith No More]

Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you. If you can prove that you know, I will be quit my self-righteous tone.

Except I don't know, and I have never claimed to. But I have a feeling you're not concerned about that. You seem to only be interested in maintaining your self-righteousness.

[downbeatplumb]

I can state that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. If you think there is evidence that contradicts my position let me see it and perhaps I'll review my position. I won't hold my breath.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you.

You're telling me that you don't know if god is real? Then why do you fuckers go on and on and on about a fucking entity that you don't know is real?

Why specifically come on an atheist forum and vehemently oppose atheists that also do not know if god is real?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

The points you make are trivial and verge on irrelevant.

\
In other words, you have no defense against them. My points destroy your refusal to engage rationally.

You just seem caught up in being angry, or is this just your online persona? Bit trite and dull I'm afraid.

Argumentum Ad hominem much?

The only thing I'll address are the following as these are the only relevant things I think you wrote:

Ours is the empirical observation of the constant, consistent, unbroken utter absence of any encounter with, or evidence of, such a being.

WHO claims to "possess 'truth'

If you act as if the lack of evidence allows you to to propose a god does not exist, then in the absence of any evidence, you may as well claim to posses the truth. This discounts the possibility of the unknown/unknowable.

Strawman much? WHO (besides you delusional theotards) claims to "possess 'The Truth™'?

[quote]The only amusing thing was your continual misquoting.

Cite and I will correct.

---

[quote='Norfolk And Chance' pid='307511' dateline='1341749917']
[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='307379' dateline='1341711442']
Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you.

You're telling me that you don't know if god is real? Then why do you fuckers go on and on and on about a fucking entity that you don't know is real?

Why specifically come on an atheist forum and vehemently oppose atheists that also do not know if god is real?
[/quote]

Because s gotta

---

How are you able to determine the probability of a god? How many known knowns, unknown uknowns etc are there?

Utter lack of evidence does not support a claim of probability.

What would the evidence be (or should it be), if a god existed?

If it existed, you could trot it over to my house and show it to me. You can't.

[CliveStaples]

I have no belief.

So you don't believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence?

But you just said that "a lack of evidence" is a valid reason to "disbelieve". Why would you say something you don't believe?

---

There is lack of evidence for bigfoot, thor, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, unicorns etc but I guarantee you don't feel the need to believe in them do you.

No, but I'm not the one who claims only to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.

*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.

Let's just get this straight, so there isn't confusion:

You guys are saying, "For any proposition p, if p lacks evidence then you shouldn't believe p." Call this proposition E (for Evidentialism).

Now, the "lack of belief" is with regard to p--you seem very keen on pointing out that lacking belief in p doesn't mean that you have some other belief.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your belief in E.

[Napoléon]

No, but I'm not the one who claims only to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

You don't choose to believe in that which is fact and can be proved by evidence. It is simply fact. It requires no 'believing'. Do you even know what the definition of belief is?

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.

*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.

Let's just get this straight, so there isn't confusion:

You guys are saying, "For any proposition p, if p lacks evidence then you shouldn't believe p." Call this proposition E (for Evidentialism).

Now, the "lack of belief" is with regard to p--you seem very keen on pointing out that lacking belief in p doesn't mean that you have some other belief.

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your belief in E.

It's not a belief, no matter how many times you stupidly say it is. Evidentialism as you call it, is the only rational way to look at the world around us. Now you can sit there and philosophise about bullshit you can and can't prove as much as you want. But there's a difference when it comes to using evidence. Evidence is used to discern fact from fiction, and if you want to disregard evidence on philosophical grounds then more fool you.

Evidence does not require belief like you are making out. It is not something you can debate over. There is either evidence supporting a hypothesis or there is not. If there is not then give me one rational reason, to think that such a hypothesis is true.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I love it when xtards resort to claiming they don't have to be rational. It lets me know just how desperate they really are.

[CliveStaples]

You don't choose to believe in that which is fact and can be proved by evidence. It is simply fact. It requires no 'believing'. Do you even know what the definition of belief is?

But we aren't debating what the factual state of affairs is. We're talking about how and why we have certain beliefs--in particular, if the standard for belief in p is that there is evidence for p, why should I believe in evidentialism? Where is the evidence for it?

It's not a belief, no matter how many times you stupidly say it is. Evidentialism as you call it, is the only rational way to look at the world around us. Now you can sit there and philosophise about bullshit you can and can't prove as much as you want. But there's a difference when it comes to using evidence. Evidence is used to discern fact from fiction, and if you want to disregard evidence on philosophical grounds then more fool you.

How do you know that evidentialism is the only rational way to look at the world? Or is that just an article of faith for you?

Evidence does not require belief like you are making out. It is not something you can debate over. There is either evidence supporting a hypothesis or there is not. If there is not then give me one rational reason, to think that such a hypothesis is true.

Sure, the 'evidence' (however defined) either exists or it doesn't. I never claimed otherwise.

The question is how you know that we should care about the evidence. How do you know that we should correlate our beliefs with the evidence available to us?

Suppose someone disagreed with evidentialism. That is, suppose someone believed, "There are at least some propositions for which there is no evidence, but that we should affirm as beliefs."

How would you prove them wrong? If evidentialism is truly the only rational worldview--that is, every rational worldview must include evidentialism--then you should be able to demonstrate some contradiction in the above person's belief.

Can you provide such a contradiction?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Evidence? Screw you Empiricalists!!! I don't need no steenkin' evidence!!! All I need is my belief, and that makes my god real!!!! ...And Zeus, and Wotan, and Ganesh, and...and..and...oh, wait...

[CliveStaples]

I can state that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. If you think there is evidence that contradicts my position let me see it and perhaps I'll review my position. I won't hold my breath.

The principle seems to be, "If we lack evidence for the truth of p, then it is appropriate to conclude not-p."

Very well, then. Suppose we lack evidence for p. Then there is no evidence for not-p; for if there were evidence for not-p, we would have evidence that p is false and thus would not lack evidence for the truth of p.

Therefore, since we lack evidence for the truth of not-p, it is appropriate to conclude not-(not-p), which is p.

Therefore, the principle above entails contradiction and is therefore irrational.

So either my proof is wrong, or you didn't use that principle, or you're using an irrational principle. Which is it?