Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[athrock]

This is true, however it only applies when the topic at hand is "is there evidence for god?". If the topic is something else, it really depends on who sounds more convincing.

The OP seems to make it clear we're talking about atheists debating Christians. My point is that it's pointless to waste time focusing on refuting specific details of Christianity if the whole of Christianity has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Again, by whose standards? Yours? 

Is that an objective standard or a subjective standard? I ask because despite the fact that the membership of this tiny forum disagrees almost unanimously with theists (of all varieties), they do outnumber skeptics by a whopping margin. IOW, you are vastly outnumbered by people who think there is adequate evidence to justify belief in a supreme being.

I grant that numbers alone are meaningless when it comes to determining truth, but in the final analysis, each individual is making personal (subjective) judgment calls about how much credence to give the "evidence" for or against Baha'u'llah, the Buddha, the Prophet Muhammed and you know who.

Finally, when you make the positive assertion, "There is no evidence for God", the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that there is none whatsoever. How would you go about this?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's a common but technically inaccurate assertion that there is NO evidence for God. There is evidence. 

Nope.

Just not the kind of empirical* evidence that some people seem to think is required. 

It is.

(see? theory and pure logic are other forms of evidence)

Nope. They can provide you with validity but not with soundness.

[GrandizerII]

Finally, when you make the positive assertion, "There is no evidence for God", the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that there is none whatsoever. How would you go about this?

If he is wrong, how can it be shown he is wrong in this case?

By, perhaps, having the other side provide some evidence, right?

[rexbeccarox]

The OP seems to make it clear we're talking about atheists debating Christians. My point is that it's pointless to waste time focusing on refuting specific details of Christianity if the whole of Christianity has failed to meet the burden of proof.

Again, by whose standards? Yours? 

Is that an objective standard or a subjective standard? I ask because despite the fact that the membership of this tiny forum disagrees almost unanimously with theists (of all varieties), they do outnumber skeptics by a whopping margin. IOW, you are vastly outnumbered by people who think there is adequate evidence to justify belief in a supreme being.

I grant that numbers alone are meaningless when it comes to determining truth, but in the final analysis, each individual is making personal (subjective) judgment calls about how much credence to give the "evidence" for or against Baha'u'llah, the Buddha, the Prophet Muhammed and you know who.

Finally, when you make the positive assertion, "There is no evidence for God", the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that there is none whatsoever. How would you go about this?

(bold mine)

There is a shit ton of irony in this, considering the thread's topic.

[athrock]

But there's not a complete lack of evidence for the good of Christianity.

And that's where you start being irrelevant.

Doesn't make it true. Christianity is still false [emphasis added], so why are atheists stupid for pointing that out?

Even with fallacious refutations from some atheists, the onus is still on the Christian to begin with when they claim that God exists.

Just to illustrate and not to   but you've just made a positive assertion that you have the burden of prove.

Is this sinking in at all?

---

I do understand the burden of proof, Evie. And you're right...Christians do have the burden of proof when they claim that God exists. But that's only one side of the coin.

Atheists have the burden of proof when they claim that God does not exist. Atheism is NOT merely a lack of a belief in God; it is a belief (ranging in strength from uncertainty to certainty) that there is no god. If that is your position, then you should be able to give me good reasons for it (just as a believer ought to be able to give me reasons for faith). It is a logical leap to go from "I'm not convinced by the evidence" to "Christianity/Judaism/Islam/whatever is not true." It simply means you don't have enough compelling evidence to know with certainty.

For example, is the total number of grains of sand on the beach an even or odd number? If you don't believe the number is even, shouldn't you have proof that the number is odd? If you're going to state something more than a guess, an opinion or a preference, you ought to start counting. Or admit that you don't know with certainty and remain agnostic about the number.

Further, the common cry that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an example of confirmation bias. Since the skeptic is not inclined to believe the claims of believers, the bar is raised. On the other hand, when a Mythicist author makes claims that are not supported by real scholarship, the bar is lowered and the claims (though unsupported) are likely to be accepted by the average skeptical reader because the author is confirming the bias of the reader.  So, the end result of this confirmation bias is that something which may be quite strong evidentially is dismissed as "not extraordinary" because the threshold for what IS considered extraordinary is raised impossibly high in the mind of the non-believer. 

This is true in reverse, of course, for religious authors and their readers, pastors and their flocks. Believers can tend to be overly gullible in this regard. As Aractus pointed out, everyone is biased, so it's important for authors and readers to be aware of this bias and consider the source when evaluating claims of one sort or another.

---

Aren't there universities and accreditation boards for this sort of thing?

Seems to me we ought to be able to figure out who has legitimate credentials and who is a self-published crackpot with a blog...

Atheism is a lack of belief, its a response to a claim, it does not make a claim or bear a burden of proof. Also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not confirmation bias, certain claims require different degrees of evidence. One example: If someone claims to have a dog, I am inclined to believe them if they show me the leash. On the other hand if they claim to have pet dragon, simply showing me a leash will not be sufficient.

I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't invest any time, money or energy into confirming my non-belief. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In my short time here, I get the impression that some folks here are actively not believing in a mythical god waaaaaay more than I'm not believing in a mythical creature.

Atheism, as practiced by some anyway, is clearly a whole lot more than a simple "lack of belief".

[Aractus]

And that's where you start being irrelevant.

Doesn't make it true. Christianity is still false, so why are atheists stupid for pointing that out?

Even with fallacious refutations from some atheists, the onus is still on the Christian to begin with when they claim that God exists.

What's your definition of relevance, and what's your definition of truth? If something has an overall positive effect on a person what does it matter whether everything they believe about their tradition is true or not?

[Mr.wizard]

And that's where you start being irrelevant.

Doesn't make it true. Christianity is still false [emphasis added], so why are atheists stupid for pointing that out?

Even with fallacious refutations from some atheists, the onus is still on the Christian to begin with when they claim that God exists.

Just to illustrate and not to   but you've just made a positive assertion that you have the burden of prove.

Is this sinking in at all?

---

Atheism is a lack of belief, its a response to a claim, it does not make a claim or bear a burden of proof. Also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not confirmation bias, certain claims require different degrees of evidence. One example: If someone claims to have a dog, I am inclined to believe them if they show me the leash. On the other hand if they claim to have pet dragon, simply showing me a leash will not be sufficient.

I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't invest any time, money or energy into confirming my non-belief. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In my short time here, I get the impression that some folks here are actively not believing in a mythical god waaaaaay more than I'm not believing in a mythical creature.

Atheism, as practiced by some anyway, is clearly a whole lot more than a simple "lack of belief".

Your talking about claims by specific atheists though, your not talking about Atheism. Its like saying atheism is a belief in aliens because Joe the atheist makes a claim that aliens exist.

[Joods]

---

Atheism is a lack of belief, its a response to a claim, it does not make a claim or bear a burden of proof. Also "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not confirmation bias, certain claims require different degrees of evidence. One example: If someone claims to have a dog, I am inclined to believe them if they show me the leash. On the other hand if they claim to have pet dragon, simply showing me a leash will not be sufficient.

I don't believe in unicorns, and I don't invest any time, money or energy into confirming my non-belief. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

In my short time here, I get the impression that some folks here are actively not believing in a mythical god waaaaaay more than I'm not believing in a mythical creature.

Atheism, as practiced by some anyway, is clearly a whole lot more than a simple "lack of belief".

Whats the basis for your impression? Atheism isn't a practice. But then again trying to explain what's already been explained time and time again to the ignorant is just par for the course.

[athrock]

Sorry Athrock but are you suggesting that true atheism=strong atheism?

You know, Evie...that's a really interesting question. I don't think I would go that far. 

While both types of atheists might change their minds, weak atheists, it seems to me, might more open to change, because it is always possible that additional evidence may come to light or that existing evidence might be presented in a new and better way.

Are you certain (strong) or merely unconvinced (weak)?

[Edwardo Piet]

Again, by whose standards? Yours? 

No.. as I said, argument is not evidence because even if the argument is valid it requires sound premises, and sound premises require evidence as opposed to more argument that can only, again, give validity at best while leaving the premise unsound.