Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Technically you are correct. I am highlighting how atheists aren't just blissfully unaware of God. They give reasons for why they are incredulous.

 
IMO, this is a fair point.  If I have understood you correctly, especially regarding some of your posts in the what is atheism thread, then a main problem with atheism being defined as the lack of belief in god, is that even if one has a lack of belief, then that individual must have reasons for his or her lack of belief; therefore, those reasons are subject to scrutiny.  Have I understood correctly? 

Many of the secular members here have written that they have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the existence of a deity.  Hence, IMO, in this thread and others concerning atheism, theism, and etc., it seems that theists and atheists are not using the term evidence in the same way: many of the secular posters here want hard, scientific, measurable data that would stand up to the intense scrutiny of multiple examinations being performed by different teams of qualified individuals, while some theist posters have said that the NT, along with their personal experience and observations of reality, is evidence for them.  Do you see things differently?



 

When a theist replies that their objections aren't sound the atheist says it doesn't matter anyway because, you know, the definition of atheism. It's dodgy.

IMO, If a person has presented arguments against the validity of your position, such as making statements that god does not exist (a strong atheist or even anti-theist stance), and then proceeds to fall back on the lack of belief (weak atheist) definition label after a thorough and valid rebuttal on your part, then I agree that it can come off as dodgy.  However, plenty of posters here have pointed out that many of the arguments made by theists rely on assertion, and from a skeptical and secular point of view, asserting the truth of a statement must be reinforced with sound logic and supported with proof/data that shows that each premise of the argument is in fact true.  Hence, do you find that these objections are dodgy? Do you think that the evidence that the secular members here have asked for is unreasonable?

Thanks for your time and attention.