Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

And my point is that atheists do make claims and hold beliefs about that evidence. Perhaps different claims, but the simple non-belief thing is nonsense.

The claims of agnostic atheists don't include 'there is no God'. We don't claim to make no claims about anything. The only claim inherent to atheism is the definition: that it's the state of not believing in any deities. The only claim inherent to identifying as an atheist is that the definition of atheism applies to their mental state concerning deities. Of course we have opinions on the soundness of the evidence presented, who says we don't? Your 'point' seems like a non sequitur to me.

---

Your post that quoted suggests quite the opposite.

Otherwise, your statement is about as useful as saying the sky is blue. Sure, atheists assert things all of the time. So do Christians, Buddhists, Jainists, Jews, Muslims, etc.

That was the point, when atheists make assertions about God or Christians, or anything else it is reasonable to ask them why they believe that!  If they call Christians delusional, or claim the Bible is fiction or just stories, then that is making an assertion.  I find that many atheists have trouble not making assertions about what they believe (at least on the internets).  And many of the same will run to a false equivocation of the definition above, when confronted.  While not always it often seems like a cop out. There is a lot of pseudo skepticism around. That was all I was commenting on.  If that doesn’t apply to you....then good

There's a difference between assertions you expect other people to accept without support, and opinions. Not everything someone says is a component of an argument. I think the supernatural claims of Christians as fanciful as the supernatural claims of anyone else. I don't feel the need to support that, it's self-evident to me and I'm not interested in convincing you that I'm right. I wouldn't start a thread about it, for instance. Ultimately, it's my opinion, and clearly your mileage varies. I don't expect you to be convinced just because I said it, and I have no obligation to support it unless I want you to believe it enough to make the effort. Now, if you want to persuade me otherwise, you're welcome to try. If you challenge me to support the contention, I may or may not choose to accept that challenge. If I don't particularly care whether you agree with me about it or not, I may decline without implication that I'm wrong.

In common language, you are expected to be able to distinguish when someone is stating their opinion or making an assertion, even if they don't use qualifiers like 'I find'. Sometimes it can be a subtle difference, but that's what clarifying questions are for.

Now if I said 'Road Runner runs to false equivocation when confronted about a certain definition and engages in pseudo-skepticism', that's a matter of fact that I should be able to support with specific examples if it's true, and since it's kind of insulting to Road Runner, I shouldn't say it unless I'm ready to back it up. It's a claim about Road Runner's behavior, and I should expect Road Runner to challenge me on it, especially if I know it's a mischaracterization. The context makes it clear I'm making an assertion about Road Runner, I'm stating it like it's a fact and the claim falls in the realm of something I ought to be able to demonstrate if it's true.

It's an unsupported assertion (and seems like a cop-out) when you vaguely refer to some atheists somewhere resorting to false equivocation when confronted without providing any specific examples, but you do you. I'd note that if those atheists aren't here on this forum, they're not really relevant to the issue at hand, and if they are, you should be able to quote them.

It doesn't apply to me, and I'm not sure it applies to anyone on the forum who could reasonably be described as a skeptic. I could be wrong, but I guess I'll never know unless you support your assertion. It doesn't apply to me and I doubt your testimony about it...but that's just my opinion.

---

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

Like what?  I find that atheists are inconsistent with their principles concerning evidence.

Who cares what you find? You never back your claims about atheists up with examples, which would be a bare beginning for supporting the notion that the inconsistency you 'find' is characteristic.

---

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.

The atheists you're arguing with seem to be confined to your head.

---

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.

No shit, Sherlock.