Atheism

[SteveII]

Let me repeat this one more time .WERE NOT ASSERTING THEIR WRONG !. Only that they case for belief sucks. And their supposed evidence simply is not .

It really us that simple. I thought my courtroom analogy would help, but sadly it did not.

You and Tiz are not saying the same thing. He believes there is no evidence at all, therefore... This is nonsense and intellectually indefensible.

---

You are making a judgement on the quality of evidence and registering that conclusion. Presumably you have reasons why you don't think they are conclusive of guilt. Any reasoning and conclusions are not simply a "lack of belief" as to the question. You made a series of conclusions and believe those conclusions to be true.

Yes, I am making judgements on the evidence that it is not sufficient to prove the defendant guilty. I lack belief that the defendant is guilty. This does not mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. It means that the prosecutor's case failed to meet its burden of proof.

I may believe the defendant is innocent, but that is a different prong of the dilemma. And, just like the defense does not have to prove his client innocent in a court, I do not have to defend the position that I believe gods do not exist in a debate.

Sure, you lack belief that the defendant is guilty. Fine. But you don't have merely a lack of belief in his guilt. You have a belief about the body of evidence presented. You have drawn conclusions from information and facts and have a definite opinion on a variety of points. You have many beliefs related to the subject. 

You wouldn't have to defend your "lack of belief" in God per se if that is all it was. You, and a lot of atheists, want it to be merely a lack of belief because then you think your criticizing of other people's beliefs don't need to be justified. I am proving that for almost all atheists, they actually hold many beliefs related to the question. It is disingenuous to say otherwise. The moment you are critical of another's belief, you automatically shoulder a burden to support your criticism.

---

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.

---

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.

The NT is entirely filled with the reasons why they believe the way they do. Every one of the 1000+ events chronicled "have a bearing on the truth of that idea." There, you just supported that the NT is evidence as to the question: is there a God.

---

Your answer seems to be that my list is not evidence because it is insufficient. Setting aside that that is question begging, by that logic then no single piece of information could ever be evidence because by itself it would never be sufficient. 

Your last paragraph is nothing but assertions (defined as a claim without evidence). You can't possibly know what other people experience or don't experience.

No, I am not saying it is insufficient. I'm saying it doesn't shift the probabilities of the idea being true or not.

As for the last sentence, that is *precisely* why it isn't evidence: knowing their claim of an experience doesn't change the probability the claim is true.

Are you saying that if a million people report a changed life, a new outlook, a feeling of the presence of God, and a sense of leading of the Holy Spirit is the same as absolutely no one reporting those things? It seems like you need that to be true to make your point. 

If that is your point, then let's change it a little. What if a million people saw an event (say an elephant walked into town and walked out the other side and disappeared never to be seen again). No video, just people and their eyeballs. Is the reporting of what those people saw "change the probability" that that event actually happened? 

One more change. Same scenario but they all saw a man appear out of thin air, say a blessing on everyone, and disappear the same way. Does that "change the probability" that that event actually happened?