Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Testimony is not evidence, you could never convict someone on testimony alone.  Set Bill Cosby Free!

Sigh. The people testifying against Cosby were subject to cross-examination. Their testimony had to stand up to scrutiny. The parts of their testimony available to verification had to confirm the testimony. The disparate testimony had to converge on facts that shouldn't be similar if they had not had the same experience. A bunch of accusations from witnesses who's testimony could not stand up to scrutiny and could not demonstrate that Cosby had the opportunity to drug and rape them would not have stood in court. And it didn't hurt that Cosby admitted to giving women barbiturates before sex to 'help them relax.'

The testimony of itself wasn't enough in the case of Cosby. What you're really saying is that a much lower standard should be acceptable to convict the Romans of having executed the miracle-working virgin-born son of God. I'm no fan of the Romans, and I'm sure they executed a lot of people who should have been allowed to live, but I'm gonna need more to believe that one of their victims was God cosplaying.

---

I was asking you a question. Are you going to answer it?

They are different, but that doesn’t change the evidence....   does evidence matter to you?

They are different in precisely a way that changes the evidence.

---

It does.  But my standard of evidence for supernatural claims like the ones in the Bible are much higher than for a claim that a powerful, rich, male celebrity took advantage of vulnerable women.  For one, I know Bill Cosby exists...

So what evidence would be sufficient to learn that something exists?  Do you think that bias effects your standards of evidence?   There is no epistemological foundation for a shifting standard of evidence. Which is why I asked if evidence matters. What type of evidence would it take?

The standards of evidence are consistent, you not being able to tell that is not evidence of a lack of epistemological consistency in others. Cosby wouldn't have been convicted on the same kind of evidence that is presented for Jesus actually being God (or a close relative).

---

And FYI were still not claiming theists are wrong .

Just that if they're right, it's unlikely to be for the reasons they give.

---

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.

---

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 occurring

Note my bolding. It doesn't seem to come up often enough for you to ever be able to give even one example and I don't see it occurring. So I don't believe you. I'm not going to become more aware of anything except your propensity to attribute behavior to atheists when you can't back it up if you keep repeating this pattern of behavior. How about you jump on the next one you see here and PM me? It shouldn't take long if it happens 'so often'.

---

Could you quote an atheist on this forum making such a statement. I'll wait. And I'll dissect their comment like I would anyone else's if it was as incoherent as you describe.

ALL of you say 'atheism' makes no claims. But that is not were MOST of you stop--"you are wrong" is in every other post on this site.  Look the meme in the OP. 'Rejecting' literally means asserting a positive claim of inadequacy. So while technically the definition of atheism may shield a person from shouldering any burden of proof, in actuality, once you say someone is wrong (rejecting), there is a requirement to justify the claim.

Atheism makes no claims. Atheists do, but the state of being an atheist is not why they do. Plenty of atheists don't even want to have this conversation. Why is this so hard for you wrap your brain around?