Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

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.

---

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.

I'm sorry, that you feel that way. I don't believe that I bring it up, unless others do, or it is applicable to the immediate conversation. I realize, that those who are agnostic, you probably don't hear from as much, and it is those who are making claims, who stand out most.

I don't keep a list of what people say, so I can go back later, and say gotcha. For me, it is more about the ideas. Would you agree, that it is wrong (and possibly dishonest) to make claims, and then fall back to an equivocation on what the word "atheist" means? Or perhaps it can be agreed upon that we only bring up the claims in the immediate conversation (as well as let others speak for themselves)? You know... civil discussion. You don't have to look very far on these boards, to see atheists making claims that the Bible is fiction, or that theists are delusional. There are claims about history, amazingly without appealing to historical evidence or much reason other than personal incredulity and making something up in it's place. There are claims of the motivation of theists, seemingly to indicate that they can't really believe it's true, so there must be some psychological dysfunction or devious motivation.

I don't' see anything wrong in pointing out, when this subject comes up (which it seems to often) in pointing out that many do go beyond merely stating the "lack of belief" and referring to their own mental state. And that when this occurs and they start making objective claims, that they can't go back and hide behind skepticism again (at least not without retracting their statements). It's fine, if you are making a statement of truth, or if you hold to an agnostic position. But, if you don't see this occurring, then I feel even more compelled to mention it (when others bring it up or it's applicable in context) perhaps you will become more aware when this is occuring