Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

Did you take the opinions vs facts quiz.  And I agreed, that atheists can be truly skeptical.

I don't recall taking that quiz.  Is it in this thread?

But then can you not think of anything every atheist must believe in common based only on their not believing in God/gods?  If you can't think of an example, can you tell me why you think that?

No the quiz was a thread of it’s own... sorry.
And as I said, I admit that an atheist does not have to make an assertion or claim. I just find that many do.

[Amarok]

And as I said, I admit that an atheist does not have to make an assertion or claim. I just find that many do.

Nope

[robvalue]

"God" must be properly defined and falsifiable before they can even be any evidence. I don't think any theist has even got that far while talking to me.

If anyone notices a theist managing to do this during this thread (or in fact, ever) I'd be very interested to know. Please shoot me a PM! Of course, simply pointing to something we already know exists and saying "that is God" would technically count, but is entirely pointless/dishonest.

Almost all the time it isn't even attempted, which tells me a lot. Instead huge walls of text are produced telling me why such a simple task is unnecessary.

---

PS: I remember one attempt, actually. I won't say who it was. But they claimed there is a falsifiable test:

If our universe exists then God exists; if it doesn't, then God doesn't.

This just tags "God" on as a meaningless extra quality to the universe existing, but it still seems unfalsifiable. It appears impossible that I could collect evidence which shows that the universe does not exist. At best I can try and convince myself that my experiences don't relate to anything real, and that somehow there isn't even anything real to experience, and that I myself am nothing. How exactly I could demonstrate that, even theoretically, I have no idea. It appears highly paradoxical.

[Whateverist]

I don't recall taking that quiz.  Is it in this thread?

But then can you not think of anything every atheist must believe in common based only on their not believing in God/gods?  If you can't think of an example, can you tell me why you think that?

No the quiz was a thread of it’s own... sorry.
And as I said, I admit that an atheist does not have to make an assertion or claim. I just find that many do.

Fair enough.  I share your observation.

[purplepurpose]

[SteveII]

Wow. So you argument is basically

1. The NT, the early church, the personal experiences of billions of people is not information or facts because I failed to believe they are information or facts.

The NT is not evidence, information or fact it is thus not accepted 

The experience of people is not evidence,information or fact no matter how many it is . Thus it not accepted 

The early churches spotty history is the same . Thus it not accepted

All of this fails as a case for theism thus it is not accepted. So once again Atheism is based on your failure to make a case not any assertion the Atheist is making .  

See bold. Then by that standard nearly all of human knowledge is not "information or fact". Certainly nothing historical. No court case ever. Nothing ever written in a book. Nothing ever told to you in a classroom. What do we have left: video evidence? You are so off base it's sad.

---

"God" must be properly defined and falsifiable before they can even be any evidence. I don't think any theist has even got that far while talking to me.

You are way off. Falsificationism is a philosophy of science principle applied to see if a proposition was scientific or NOT. Popper never meant that it applied to all areas of knowledge. There are huge stretches of human knowledge that are not falsifiable.

[RoadRunner79]

The NT is not evidence, information or fact it is thus not accepted 

The experience of people is not evidence,information or fact no matter how many it is . Thus it not accepted 

The early churches spotty history is the same . Thus it not accepted

All of this fails as a case for theism thus it is not accepted. So once again Atheism is based on your failure to make a case not any assertion the Atheist is making .  

See bold. Then by that standard nearly all of human knowledge is not "information or fact". Certainly nothing historical. No court case ever. Nothing ever written in a book. Nothing ever told to you in a classroom. What do we have left: video evidence? You are so off base it's sad.

If videos are evidence, then you must believe in Harry Potter and Ghostbusters. You are left with what you see personally, it’s not evidence if you transfer this information to another, and then even then is not trust worthy evidence. I’m convinced that some don’t really know anything.

[Silver]

It still astounds me that theists cannot comprehend the meaning of objective evidence.

[polymath257]

---

PS: I remember one attempt, actually. I won't say who it was. But they claimed there is a falsifiable test:

If our universe exists then God exists; if it doesn't, then God doesn't.

This just tags "God" on as a meaningless extra quality to the universe existing, but it still seems unfalsifiable. It appears impossible that I could collect evidence which shows that the universe does not exist. At best I can try and convince myself that my experiences don't relate to anything real, and that somehow there isn't even anything real to experience, and that I myself am nothing. How exactly I could demonstrate that, even theoretically, I have no idea. It appears highly paradoxical.

Hey, if they are pantheist and identify God as the universe, then I guess I'm a theist also. Otherwise, the argument is nonsense.

[robvalue]

Exactly, yes

They were claiming this wasn't the case, but that God is separate and the universe existing means God has to exist. That is just assuming the conclusion of course, and no explanation was given.