Atheism

[polymath257]

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.

---

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 "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.

Here's the point: does the fact that a large number of people believe *in and of itself* an idea give evidence that the idea is true?

I would say no. People are inclined to believe any number of strange ideas and the mere fact that a large number of people believe an idea doesn't change the probability that the idea is true.

What *might* change that probability is the *reason* that the people believe that idea: in other words, the *evidence* they used to reach that conclusion. But, if there is *no* evidence, or if the purported 'evidence' doesn't, in fact, have a bearing on the truth of that idea, then it really *isn't evidence* because it cannot change the probability that the idea is true.

There are a great many things people *claim* as evidence when, if actually investigated, doesn't move the likelihood truth one direction or the other.