(January 22, 2013 at 8:49 am)John V Wrote: Agreed. When making a charge against theists, the atheist should ask himself if the charge applies specifically to theists, or to humans in general.

One cannot, by definition, be a theist unless they believe in a claim which lacks any legitimate substance. This is not necessary to be a non-believer.

Quote:Yeah, like abiogenesis.

1. This is a theory supported by evidence, however substantial. Your religious belief is supported by absolutely no evidence at all.
2. Belief in abiogenesis is absolutely unnecessary to be an atheist, and there are doubtless many who do not accept it.
3. I've seen precisely zero atheists claim that it is undeniably factual.

Quote:Considering abiogenesis, atheists are almost certainly guilty of it as well.

Every theist that ever lived is beyond guilty of blind faith in entirely unsupported assertions. No matter how many atheists may be guilty of it, certainly many are not.

(January 23, 2013 at 8:53 pm)Ryantology Wrote: One cannot, by definition, be a theist unless they believe in a claim which lacks any legitimate substance. This is not necessary to be a non-believer.

What definition would that be?

Quote:1. This is a theory supported by evidence, however substantial. Your religious belief is supported by absolutely no evidence at all.

Depends who's defining evidence.

Quote:2. Belief in abiogenesis is absolutely unnecessary to be an atheist, and there are doubtless many who do not accept it.

What is their explanation for the origin of life?

Quote:3. I've seen precisely zero atheists claim that it is undeniably factual.

It seems to be the logical consequence of a materialist/naturalist position, and many atheists are materialists.

Quote:Every theist that ever lived is beyond guilty of blind faith in entirely unsupported assertions.

As above re: evidence, that depends on who's defining support.