I can feel your anger

[Norfolk And Chance]

So you don't believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence?

Belief for me, doesn't come into it any further than : 0 evidence supporting a claim = I don't believe the claim.

But you just said that "a lack of evidence" is a valid reason to "disbelieve". Why would you say something you don't believe?

What in actual fuck are you talking about?

Meaningless waffle.

[Whateverist]

I'm only now having a look at this thread. (The title was off-putting.)

So what do we have here. An agnostic who thinks atheists overstate their case? So what else is new? Yes many do but not everyone here does. Admittedly you frequently hear the demand for evidence followed by a lot of self congratulatory hooting about how anything that doesn't carry the good-science-keeping seal of approval is just a remnant of the dark ages.

So you, jelliedsoup, are questioning how strongly wed to evidence we could be if we carry around assumptions regarding the march of progress and infallibility of science? You must think a lot of us atheists are just on the rebound from a failed love affair with god. Perhaps we are still in love with the comfort of certainty and the feeling of being in the know, and those really are the hallmark of a true-believer's mindset.

So how about you? In your righteous agnosticism do you lean one way or the other regarding the place of the supernatural? I admit to being a flat-earther when it comes to natural explanations. Anything that doesn't have a place in the natural world doesn't have any place at all as far as I can see. That's a bias I'll cop to and it inclines me to carry on as though there aren't any gods.

Now I have no issue with anyone who does believe in gods, so long as they aren't intent on getting me to adopt what they believe for circular reasons. I actually enjoy discussing cosmology with agnostic theists most of all. Rare breed though. Hard to come by and I do wish this site would give them a better welcome when they do stop by. Chad Wooters was here for a while and I couldn't always get my head into all his ideas but I did enjoy trying.

[CliveStaples]

Belief for me, doesn't come into it any further than : 0 evidence supporting a claim = I don't believe the claim.

Yes, but what justifies that belief? Why should you hold to evidentialism?

What in actual fuck are you talking about?

Meaningless waffle.

You said that you don't believe. But you have a belief--you hold to evidentialism. What justifies this belief in evidentialism? What's wrong with denying evidentialism?

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Belief for me, doesn't come into it any further than : 0 evidence supporting a claim = I don't believe the claim.

Yes, but what justifies that belief? Why should you hold to evidentialism?

What in actual fuck are you talking about?

Meaningless waffle.

You said that you don't believe. But you have a belief--you hold to evidentialism. What justifies this belief in evidentialism? What's wrong with denying evidentialism?

You are certainly welcome to reject reason and rationlity, and be unreasonable and irrational. But you forfeit your right to be taken seriously and treated politely.

[Napoléon]

But we aren't debating what the factual state of affairs is. We're talking about how and why we have certain beliefs--in particular, if the standard for belief in p is that there is evidence for p, why should I believe in evidentialism? Where is the evidence for it?

Evidence is not a belief system

Get that into your head.

You are suggesting that to use evidence you need evidence to back up the fact you need evidence.
This is plain stupidity. You don't take evidence based on a leap of faith, you take it because it is what is used to discern the world around you.

You can get into a philosobabble debate about it all you want, but unless you come up with some other way of a verifiable, testable, reasonable and logical system of interpreting the world around you, then you don't have a leg to stand on, and are frankly talking in complete bollocks and hypotheticals.

How do you know that evidentialism is the only rational way to look at the world? Or is that just an article of faith for you?

Because it is testable. Try to keep up.

Sure, the 'evidence' (however defined) either exists or it doesn't. I never claimed otherwise.

The question is how you know that we should care about the evidence. How do you know that we should correlate our beliefs with the evidence available to us?

Well if you don't then you are ignoring the whole point evidence in the first place.

Suppose someone disagreed with evidentialism. That is, suppose someone believed, "There are at least some propositions for which there is no evidence, but that we should affirm belief of."

How would you prove them wrong?

That's not my job. Burden of proof is on them to prove it right.

It's the same sort of question as asking, "suppose someone believed: there are at least some leprechauns in the world for which there is no evidence, but that we should affirm as beliefs

Prove them wrong"

How ridiculously retarded.

If evidentialism is truly the only rational worldview--that is, every rational worldview must include evidentialism--then you should be able to demonstrate some contradiction in the above person's belief.

Can you provide such a contradiction?

Yes, "where is the evidence for you to believe such a thing".

[NoraBrimstone]

This whole thread is on crack.

[Napoléon]

Nah, but one of us certainly is.

[Selliedjoup]

Out of you and Nora I'd have to go for you.

---

This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?

I have no belief.

Why is this the common assertion of the atheist? Yes we all know you have no belief in a god, this is not the same as the belief set you appply to reach the "I have no belief" conclusion. Two seperate and distinct things.

---

This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?

There is lack of evidence for bigfoot, thor, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, unicorns etc but I guarantee you don't feel the need to believe in them do you.

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.

*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.

Thor, the Loch Ness monster et al do not account for anything, as there is nothing (worthwhile) that could be attibuted due to their eixstence. Given we exist (I'm assuming we agree on this), yet existence has not been explained, and there is no evidence to prove the catalyst for existence, how can you discount things without proof of what did actually occur?

---

Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you. If you can prove that you know, I will be quit my self-righteous tone.

Except I don't know, and I have never claimed to. But I have a feeling you're not concerned about that. You seem to only be interested in maintaining your self-righteousness.

You seem only focused on my self-righteousoness rather than what I'm saying. You may claim to not know, but to take the intellectual high ground without a proven set of facts to prove your persepective, your conclusion can only be based on your worldview/set of beliefs, nothing more. If you consider that you're without 'belief' most non-atheists will call bullshit.

How do you claim to not know and then quote "Those afraid of the universe as it really is..."? I hope you can see where you're contradicting yourself.

[Reforged]

Thats it, I'm raising the stakes:
*ziiip* *FLOP*
I think you know what they are. -.-

[Selliedjoup]

I can state that God does not exist due to the lack of evidence. If you think there is evidence that contradicts my position let me see it and perhaps I'll review my position. I won't hold my breath.

I'm not saying that god defintiely exists, I personally don't believe in a christian god, or else I wouldn't be agnostic. That said I don't discount the possibility of it being 'correct' nor do I take an active stance in belittling those who do believe.

What evidence is required to prove a god exists? If you don't know what the evidence is, then you're in no position to assess whether it exists or not.

---

Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you.

You're telling me that you don't know if god is real? Then why do you fuckers go on and on and on about a fucking entity that you don't know is real?

Why specifically come on an atheist forum and vehemently oppose atheists that also do not know if god is real?

Who is "you fuckers"? All I claim is the atheist position is as faith based as the theist one. The difference is theists have the congintive ability to recognise faith. Those atheists who attempt to portray themselves as some sort of rational/objective being need to be able to adequately justify their perspective with facts. Until then atheism will remain a belief. I can understand why that annoys you so, as you will probably never be able to disprove a god (if it doesn't exist). I guess the only thing you can do is have faith science will be able to account for existence, govnerning laws to the level required etc so a creator is surplus to requirements.

Primarily because atheists proclaim it's rational to not believe, belittle those who do, but then strangely admit they "do not know if god is real". If so many did not consider themselves to be a paragon of intellectual honesty, I wouldn't call bullshit.

---

Thats it, I'm raising the stakes:
*ziiip* *FLOP*
I think you know what they are. -.-

It's like a dick, only smaller. Ba dom poom pish.

---

The points you make are trivial and verge on irrelevant.

\
In other words, you have no defense against them. My points destroy your refusal to engage rationally.

I could respond by saying "no you get fucked" but that seems pointless to me. Obviously insults are the foundation of your rationale, and I don't see how I would engage this rationally, but each to their own.

You just seem caught up in being angry, or is this just your online persona? Bit trite and dull I'm afraid.

Argumentum Ad hominem much?

Say much much?

If you were different I wouldn't say it. If someone steals and is called a thief, then complains about being called a thief after the next time they steal, the issue lies with the thief. You may beg to differ, that is your prerogative.

---

Cite and I will correct.

What difference would it make, would you change "get fucked you cunt" to "you're a cunt get fucked"? If you made a point in the misquoting I'd address them, you didn't so I won't.