(July 9, 2012 at 7:24 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: I'll say this slowly "I. do. not. believe. there. is. a. god. because. there. is. no. evidence"
I do not have a belief in god. It is non belief, disbelief, unbelief. It is NOT belief.
Therefore I cannot answer your question "what justifies that belief"
You have missed the point quite broadly.
The belief that I was asking about was the belief, "For all propositions p, if there is no evidence for p then I should not believe p."
I'm not asking why you "believe" atheism. I'm asking why you believe evidentialism.
Quote:Why should I hold to evidentialism? Because it is the best way of understanding reality and finding out truth.
Evidence is something you can test, compare, back up a theory with, it can also be used to rule things out that were previously thought true.
How do you know that? Just saying it doesn't make it true.
Why should I hold to unicornism? Because it is the best way of understanding reality and finding out truth.
Unicorns are something you can test, compare, back up a theory with, they can also be used to rule things out that were previously thought true.
See, I can write words to.
How do you know that those claims you're making about evidence...are actually true? (NOTE: I AM NOT FUCKING SAYING THAT THE CLAIMS ARE FALSE.)
Quote:And what is wrong with laughing like fuck at those that deny evidentialism?
The same thing that you think is wrong with laughing like fuck at those that deny theism: if you can't support your beliefs, you have no ground to mock those who reject them.
All of which won't apply if you can actually provide (non-circular) support for evidentialism.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”