What is Atheism?

[Nonpareil]

Suppose Joe Blow is on trial for murder. It is incumbent on the prosecution show Joe is indeed guilty. The prosecution presents as evidence a bloody garment found in Joe’s car, a witness who says he heard Joe arguing with the victim, and a gun in Joe’s apartment that matches the caliber of the bullet found in the victim’s body. At this point, the defense does not say to the jury, “See! They have no evidence!” Instead the defense must give reasons why the evidence does not support prosecution’s case.

Possibly. It may also be the case that the defense is forced to accept that the evidence supports the prosecution's case, and instead has to argue that it has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case of this, however -

Maybe the witness isn’t reliable because of dementia. Maybe it wasn’t the same gun as the murder weapon.

- then these pieces of "evidence" have been established to not support the prosecution's case, and are, in fact, not actually evidence.

With respect to the proposition that God exists, lots of evidence has been presented.

No.

Lots of things that get called evidence have been presented. But, as is the case with "the bullet is from a different gun" example you gave above, it is not actually evidence, as it fails to support the conclusion for a variety of reasons. In the case of the appearance of design example that you give, since no one can even coherently define how a designed universe would necessarily appear different from a non-designed one, asserting that there is a "clear and obvious" appearance of design is rather nonsensical.

Being called evidence is not equivalent to being evidence. This non-evidence should still, in any constructive discussion, be accompanied with justification as to its dismissal, but the fact that a polite debate partner will explain why teleology is not evidence does not make teleology evidence.

[AceBoogie]

Atheism is something that doesn't fit the definition I'm using to argue my point, therefore we will dance around the facts for dozens of pages of this thread before arriving, if ever, at any sort of consensus or conclusion.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@ Nonpariel - That's why I call it begging the question. Evidence means that which is evident prior to acceptance. After acceptance it is called 'proof'. If I were an atheist, I would say there is no proof because the evidence does not support that conclusion.

[Nonpareil]

@ Nonpariel - That's why I call it begging the question. Evidence means that which is evident prior to acceptance.

No. Evidence means "that which logically supports a given conclusion". Whether or not the conclusion has yet been established to be true is irrelevant.

If it can be established that the bloody cloth is from an accidental cut, the neighbor is making things up, and the gun is not the murder weapon, then they fail to support the conclusion, whether or not it is true. They are not evidence. This is not begging the question. It is making sure that what you claim - "this cloth has the victim's blood on it", "this reliable witness reported the crime", "the murder weapon was found in the accused's possession" - is actually true.

If it isn't, then it doesn't support your conclusion. It is not evidence.

[Cephus]

This is a little obscure and esoteric, but there is a scene from an early episode of Steptoe and Son in which Harold, the son, challenges Albert, his dad, to show him the shrapnel wounds he claims to have received in WW1 and which he often uses as an excuse to get out of any hard work. Albert keeps prevaricating, throwing out red herrings and threats of violence. Anything to avoid having to actually back up his claim. As a last resort he says "I've got medals in that drawer", as though it's incontrovertible proof.

Long story short, that's what I picture whenever we get logical acrobatics and other smokescreen tactics in place of the evidence for which we ask.

I see little point in continuing until people stop using the word 'evidence' in a way that begs the question, i.e. as something already proven. This, as opposed to something evident (obvious, apparent, plain) presented to support an assertion.

But it's not evident, that's the problem.  Just because you leap to an absurd conclusion based on emotion doesn't mean that the claims that you make actually make any sense.  That's why we demand evidence.  It is something that doesn't depend on your wishful thinking, it can be objectively examined and conclusions can be drawn based on that.

[houseofcantor]

Atheism is a rejection of contemporary theology.

[masterofpuppets]

I cannot address all the individual points in the flurry of responses, so my apologies in advance to anyone who feels ignored.

Suppose Joe Blow is on trial for murder. It is incumbent on the prosecution show Joe is indeed guilty. The prosecution presents as evidence a bloody garment found in Joe’s car, a witness who says he heard Joe arguing with the victim, and a gun in Joe’s apartment that matches the caliber of the bullet found in the victim’s body. At this point, the defense does not say to the jury, “See! They have no evidence!” Instead the defense must give reasons why the evidence does not support prosecution’s case. Maybe, Joe cut himself in an accident. Maybe the witness isn’t reliable because of dementia. Maybe it wasn’t the same gun as the murder weapon.  Unless the defense comes up with plausible reasons to not accept the evidence, the facts of the case will stand in favor of the prosecution.

With respect to the proposition that God exists, lots of evidence has been presented. I will even agree that not all of the evidence supports the conclusion that God exists. For example, I think the design arguments are particularly weak. But it would be silly for me to deny the clear and obvious fact that living systems do indeed appear to be designed. Sure it’s evidence but not evidence that supports the claim.

So if I tell my friend the Good News about Jesus Christ, he may ask me why I believe it. In reply I could perhaps present the ‘minimal facts’ argument about the resurrection. If he says I didn’t convince him that means he obviously harbors some objections to the ‘minimal facts’ -  objections I failed to address. It would be dodgy of him, after having heard my schpeel, to pretend like I didn’t give him evidence and that he didn’t have reasons for not believing me. That is why I simply do not buy the whole ‘lack of belief’ story. Sure atheists lack belief, but they are also incredulous. They have objections and those objections are also subject to scrutiny.

You claim that living organisms appear to be designed, but that does not amount to evidence that they were actually designed. You would need to demonstrate that they were indeed designed as well as the processes involved.

Also, it's not that your friend is pretending like you didn't give evidence. It's that your evidence was not sufficient. You are assuming that every claim can be accepted as long as there is some evidence. In truth, different claims require different levels of supporting evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. However, even if that were not the case, the "evidence" for Jesus Christ is barely evidence at all.

"Lack of belief" simply means "lack of belief in the claim that a God exists". That's the best way to describe the atheistic position. It's just like how you (most probably) lack a belief in the claim that aliens are visiting the Earth. The reasons you lack a belief in that claim are the reasons atheists lack a belief in yours. "Lack of belief" is not something atheists simply say to dismiss theistic claims, simply because they don't agree. It's because they are not convinced that such claims are true.

[Brian37]

@ Nonpariel - That's why I call it begging the question. Evidence means that which is evident prior to acceptance. After acceptance it is called 'proof'. If I were an atheist, I would say there is no proof because the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Bullshit, that is not how good logic works. You don't swallow first or assume first. Otherwise I really do own the Brooklyn Bridge and can sell it to you. That last sentence gives you away. You, with out realizing it are retrofitting after the fact, reaching backwards in logic to make your conclusion match your desires. That is what YOU are doing, not us. 

Evidence isn't about favoring anything personal, it leads, and you go where it leads, not to where you personally want it to go. Theists when they cant debunk science, try to retrofit science after the fact to match their own desires. We as atheists are glad you are not an atheist, because you would make a lousy one.

---

Theist logic.

Assume a god first<=insert holy writing, debunk or incorporate science after the fact,<=assume desired outcome

Good logic goes like this.

Collect data based on established method=>insert data into established formula/method, compare with control groups=>Write down your findings=> Hand your findings over to other peers for review whom are independent of you. If they replicate the same data/method and come to the same conclusions after repeated replication, then you are onto something. But if you have a flaw in any part of that process, and they cannot replicate what you handed them, then you need to go back and start over.

[RoadRunner79]

@ Nonpariel - That's why I call it begging the question. Evidence means that which is evident prior to acceptance. After acceptance it is called 'proof'. If I were an atheist, I would say there is no proof because the evidence does not support that conclusion.

Bullshit, that is not how good logic works. You don't swallow first or assume first. Otherwise I really do own the Brooklyn Bridge and can sell it to you. That last sentence gives you away. You, with out realizing it are retrofitting after the fact, reaching backwards in logic to make your conclusion match your desires. That is what YOU are doing, not us. 

Evidence isn't about favoring anything personal, it leads, and you go where it leads, not to where you personally want it to go. Theists when they cant debunk science, try to retrofit science after the fact to match their own desires. We as atheists are glad you are not an atheist, because you would make a lousy one.

---

Theist logic.

Assume a god first<=insert holy writing, debunk or incorporate science after the fact,<=assume desired outcome

Good logic goes like this.

Collect data based on established method=>insert data into established formula/method, compare with control groups=>Write down your findings=> Hand your findings over to other peers for review whom are independent of you. If they replicate the same data/method and come to the same conclusions after repeated replication, then you are onto something. But if you have a flaw in any part of that process, and they cannot replicate what you handed them, then you need to go back and start over.

I tend to disagree, with a few here; who seem to indicate, that evidence is designated after you are convinced.  This would be opposed to being convinced by the evidence.   I would also agree with Neo (as I see the point he is trying to make), that consequently saying that you lack belief, because there is no evidence is begging the question or at least incoherent with this view of evidence.  This also seems like an odd use of the word evidence, which I have only seen here.

I could be wrong (you and especially Neo may clarify); but, I think that your post here is based less on evidence or reason, and more on assumptions and things not said by Neo.  More of a demonstration really!

Also, ones motivations or personal bias, have no effect on their evidence or reasons given.  The logic stands on it's own regardless of who says it, or why.

[Jesster]

Also, ones motivations or personal bias, have no effect on their evidence or reasons given.  The logic stands on it's own of who says it, or why.

I mean, isn't that what most of us (including Brian) have been saying this whole time?