RE: Is atheism a belief?
March 2, 2019 at 2:02 am
(This post was last modified: March 2, 2019 at 2:09 am by Belacqua.)
(March 2, 2019 at 1:51 am)PRJA93 Wrote: I've explained why we use scientific evidence to understand the world around us. Empirical evidence is observable, verifiable and repeatable. This is why things like "personal revelations" are not considered empirical evidence. The scientific community works this way for a reason.
Finally! An answer!
Yes, I was guessing that this is your belief. When you say "evidence" what you mean is evidence of the type that you consider to be good. But earlier you didn't specify which type that is.
Quote:Furthermore, you haven't demonstrated why the things you listed shoud be considered valid forms of evidence, yet you insist that I have to defend why scientific evidence is superior.
I have asserted nothing about the quality of evidence. I did not say that those things should be considered valid forms of evidence. And I do not insist that you defend why scientific evidence is superior. Please try to read more carefully and not accuse me of saying things I haven't said.
The issue I want to address is not about quality of evidence. It is that you derive your conclusion from a belief. This belief is that there is no evidence. The belief that there is no evidence is derived from your belief that only empirical evidence counts. Your atheism, therefore, is derived from beliefs.
So I guess we can split hairs and say that atheism is only a lack. But it is a lack derived from, supported by, and maintained according to, beliefs.
(March 2, 2019 at 1:40 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Are you asking for some one to present "No evidence"?
No not at all.
I am asking him how he defines evidence, which is a different question.
He apparently has reasons to assert that there is no evidence. Can he give reasons for this? Or does he believe it for no reason?
He says there is none. Believers say there is. I want to know why I should believe him.
He has now kindly elaborated by specifying which kind of evidence he allows. This view of what is good evidence and what isn't is something he holds to be true. He believes it. If he ever made an effort at anything, he could even make a good case for it. But that's not what I'm asking for. What I'm asserting is that his atheism derives at least in part from this belief that he has. It's still a belief.
