Hello! I am a Christian who has been reading this Forum for a while.

Before we discuss a Positive Case for Christianity, I would like to humbly and gently ask - is there any Positive Evidence for Atheism.

You know, like, if (1) it is raining outside and (2) it is NOT raining outside are Two Competing Hypotheses being tested, both have to present Evidence.

Is there any for Atheism? Or does the Evidence favor Theism? Thanks.

Before we discuss evidence for atheism. Is there any evidence for not believing in the tooth fairy? Please present any.

The evidence for atheism is simple, I don't believe in any gods, that means that I am an atheist, therefore atheism exists.

Zebo, you took the words right out of my mouth. Atheism is not a statement about whether or not gods exist; it's a statement about whether or not someone believes that gods exist. If someone does not believe in any gods, the word "atheism" is an accurate description of their belief and is therefore true.

Nishant! How are you, you old fart?

Meanwhile, here's your evidence for atheism:

(September 26, 2026 at 4:34 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Nishant! How are you, you old fart?

Thought it smelled a bit like dirty socks in here...

(September 26, 2026 at 1:26 am)FrancisXavier Wrote: Hello! I am a Christian who has been reading this Forum for a while.

Before we discuss a Positive Case for Christianity, I would like to humbly and gently ask - is there any Positive Evidence for Atheism.

You know, like, if (1) it is raining outside and (2) it is NOT raining outside are Two Competing Hypotheses being tested, both have to present Evidence.

Is there any for Atheism? Or does the Evidence favor Theism? Thanks.

No, there is no evidence for Atheism. That's because it's not an evidentiary thing.

Boru

(September 26, 2026 at 1:26 am)FrancisXavier Wrote: Hello! I am a Christian who has been reading this Forum for a while.

Before we discuss a Positive Case for Christianity, I would like to humbly and gently ask - is there any Positive Evidence for Atheism.

You know, like, if (1) it is raining outside and (2) it is NOT raining outside are Two Competing Hypotheses being tested, both have to present Evidence.

Is there any for Atheism? Or does the Evidence favor Theism? Thanks.

Atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deity or deities. Theism is a belief and a claim, atheism is not, though atheists make claims, but demanding evidence for doubting your claim, before you have evidenced is nonsensical. This borders on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where someone argues that something is true because we lack alternative evidence or explanation. 

The second sentence is a false equivalence, since we know that rain or the lack are both nomologically and objectively possible, I have seen no evidence that any deity is possible, and again atheism is not a claim no deity exists. 

If you think there is evidence for any deity then do please present the best you think you have, only I have only ever seen subjective claims and arguments. No objective evidence of any kind.

(September 26, 2026 at 8:13 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(September 26, 2026 at 1:26 am)FrancisXavier Wrote: Hello! I am a Christian who has been reading this Forum for a while.

Before we discuss a Positive Case for Christianity, I would like to humbly and gently ask - is there any Positive Evidence for Atheism.

You know, like, if (1) it is raining outside and (2) it is NOT raining outside are Two Competing Hypotheses being tested, both have to present Evidence.

Is there any for Atheism? Or does the Evidence favor Theism? Thanks.

Atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deity or deities. Theism is a belief and a claim, atheism is not, though atheists make claims, but demanding evidence for doubting your claim, before you have evidenced is nonsensical. This borders on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where someone argues that something is true because we lack alternative evidence or explanation. 

The second sentence is a false equivalence, since we know that rain or the lack are both nomologically and objectively possible, I have seen no evidence that any deity is possible, and again atheism is not a claim no deity exists. 

If you think there is evidence for any deity then do please present the best you think you have, only I have only ever seen subjective claims and arguments. No objective evidence of any kind.

Hi Sheldon. As I mentioned, (1) Atheists should try to Present some Positive Evidence for Atheism (2) then try and refute the Positive Evidence for Christianity. You are saying Atheists are somehow excused just because "atheism is not a claim" etc.

Anyway, here are 10 Positive Evidences for Christianity that I mention in my book:

1) Kalam Cosmological Argument
2) Thomistic Contingency Argument
3) Fine Tuning Design Argument
4) Saint Anselm's/Alvin Plantinga's Ontological Argument using Modal Logic
5) Goodness of God Objective Morality Argument

These prove Abrahamic Monotheism. Next, 5 Specific Evidences for Christian Theism:

6) Messianic Prophecies
7) Resurrection Evidence
8) Shroud of Turin Evidence
9) Eucharistic Miracle Evidence
10) Healing Miracle Evidence.

If every Evidence Point moves your Conviction even 10% in favor, 10 Points should move it to 100% Certainty.

What am I missing? If you think I am making an Error here, pls point it out. Thanks and Take Care. In Christ, FrancisXavier.

(September 26, 2026 at 10:47 am)FrancisXavier Wrote:

(September 26, 2026 at 8:13 am)Sheldon Wrote: Atheism is not a claim, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deity or deities. Theism is a belief and a claim, atheism is not, though atheists make claims, but demanding evidence for doubting your claim, before you have evidenced is nonsensical. This borders on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where someone argues that something is true because we lack alternative evidence or explanation. 

The second sentence is a false equivalence, since we know that rain or the lack are both nomologically and objectively possible, I have seen no evidence that any deity is possible, and again atheism is not a claim no deity exists. 

If you think there is evidence for any deity then do please present the best you think you have, only I have only ever seen subjective claims and arguments. No objective evidence of any kind.

Hi Sheldon. As I mentioned, (1) Atheists should try to Present some Positive Evidence for Atheism (2) then try and refute the Positive Evidence for Christianity. You are saying Atheists are somehow excused just because "atheism is not a claim" etc.

Anyway, here are 10 Positive Evidences for Christianity that I mention in my book:

1) Kalam Cosmological Argument
2) Thomistic Contingency Argument
3) Fine Tuning Design Argument
4) Saint Anselm's/Alvin Plantinga's Ontological Argument using Modal Logic
5) Goodness of God Objective Morality Argument

These prove Abrahamic Monotheism. Next, 5 Specific Evidences for Christian Theism:

6) Messianic Prophecies
7) Resurrection Evidence
8) Shroud of Turin Evidence
9) Eucharistic Miracle Evidence
10) Healing Miracle Evidence.

If every Evidence Point moves your Conviction even 10% in favor, 10 Points should move it to 100% Certainty.

What am I missing? If you think I am making an Error here, pls point it out. Thanks and Take Care. In Christ, FrancisXavier.

Why would anyone need to evidence a claim they've not made? I don't believe any deity or deities exist, as I have not seen sufficient or sufficiently compelling evidence, this is not a claim no deities exist, so as I said it is nonsensical t ask anyone to evidence a claim they have not made.  

The first 5 are arguments, not evidence:
1. Is a first cause argument, not a theistic one, and I find it uncompelling as it is flawed. It uses false equivalence fallacies, by making causal claims based on characteristics of this universe, and applying them  to conditions prior to the BB, without any evidence these are also begging the question fallacies, it also uses special pleading fallacies where it claims everything must have a cause, then uses that fallacy to excuse a "first cause", the assumption the cause is a deity - see Lane craig's woeful adaptation of the KCA, is just that, pure unevidenced assumption. 
2. Again uncompelling as it uses unproven metaphysical assumptions, questionable causal principles, and the invalid leap from a necessary foundation to a personal deity. 
3. Fine tuning is a scientific metaphor, there is no evidence the universe is fine tuned, and even if it were, this argument makes an unevidenced leap to a deity as a cause, without even demonstrating that a deity is possible of curse, it's question begging again. 
4. Use premises that are themselves as in need of supporting evidence as the arguments conclusion, again this amounts to little more than question begging.  
5. A subjective argument, and again it makes unevidenced assumptions, both about the nature of morality and about the very thing it is arguing for - a deity - and thus is begging the question again. 

So these are not evidence but argument, and all of them deeply flawed with a priori assumptions and fallacious reasoning. 

6. Is a claim not evidence, and even if anyone could evidence the claim all you would have is an inexplicable event, which is used to assume divine cause, so argumentum ad ignorantiam reasoning again. 
7.  A bare claim in as much need of evidence as the conclusion attached, and even were it anything than a a bare claim from an epoch of extreme superstition, ignorance and credulity, the conclusion of a deity is pure unevidenced assumption. If I believed the anonymous 2nd hand - at best - hearsay of the canonical gospel myths, then I'd have no rational justification for disbelieving the claims of any other religious text, or even the Legend of Hercules. 
8. Again an unevidenced claim, and again an appeal to mystery, even were it not a medieval creation, and the only testing thus far suggest that is very likely, all you would have is something that currently defies explanation, to claim something is true because we lack alternative evidence or explanation, is argumentum ad ignorantiam reasoning, and obviously fallacious. 
9. Again a bare claim, and again miracle are defined as an extraordinary event that cannot be explained by natural or scientific laws and is often attributed to a divine or supernatural power, which is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again. It is not evidence itself, but a unevidenced claim, and even were the claim evidenced, which by definition it cannot be, then it would be fallacious and assumptive to claim it evidenced a deity. 
10. See response point 9...