Atheism

[SteveII]

The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

There are many Roman documents describing the cult of Mithras.  It was very popular from the 1st to 4th century AD.  There are descriptions of the divinity of Mithras, who was born from a rock and ruler of the Sun.  There are many statues and carvings still in existence.  Of course, it was a male-only religion, and secretive, so it wasn't a good choice for Constantine to appropriate.  

But we have a lot of knowledge of their existence, and their practices!  In fact, there are still Mithraist groups!  This must be evidence that Mithras exists, right?

You are missing the entire point of my series of answers. You have looked at the evidence and determined it is lacking (in both cases). You have beliefs and conclusions about the evidence. That is all I am saying. Atheists make positive claims about the adequacy of the evidence--ALL THE TIME. Hiding behind this nonsense about making no claims or assertions is nonsense.

---

Yes it does. Two points about your comments. 

1. You have set a threshold for proof. That itself is a belief about where that threshold should be as evidenced by the the fact that billions upon billions of people that have set that threshold somewhere else. So right there you have one belief (claim) that can be scrutinized. 
2. You care confusing the definitions of evidence and proof. Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. It is a false statement to say there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then your meme is an assertion. 

I know word definitions are tough and being precise is overrated. 

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

1.  I wonder what makes you use the word threshold.  It simply doesn't fit into your argument, which is why I am always concerned about the theistic worldview and its horrid vocabulary misuse.

2.  If it is a false statement to state there is no evidence for the existence of god, then surely the evidence would be so logically and reasonably overwhelming that everyone would believe in god without a single doubt.  The fact that doubt of god's existence is a reality proves personal belief and personal faith is not evidence of god's existence as much as the theist wished it were thus. 

The bible is certainly evidence that man has a wonderful imagination.  Nothing more.  Experiences of billions of people are individual personal experiences, people sharing personal experiences with others and finding comfort as well as community in those personal experiences, yet there is zero evidence beyond the individual personal perspective to provide proof or truth to religious claims.  Billions of people may think Pepsi is better than Coke, but it does not become a fact or a truth that Pepsi is better than Coke due to the fact that each individual, personal opinion is based subjectively rather than objectively.

You have just confused two things. Evidence and whether that evidence is sufficient for "believe in God without a single doubt" or "to provide proof or truth to religious claims." Confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Simple as that. There is evidence to consider and whether it compels a conclusion is entirely subjective on a persons threshold of proof needed to support a belief. 


You have looked at the evidence and you conclude it is insufficient for proof. Fine. But by definition you have made a claim if you have a conclusion.