Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

Atheists however assert a lot of things all the time. And when they do, isn’t it easonable to ask why they believe that?

Yes. It's not reasonable to assume that it's because they are atheists, though.

---

Just because you call something evidence does not mean we view it as such.And again not accepting the evidence is not an assertion .

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Wait for it...different atheists can have different reasons for not accepting some particular evidence as supporting some particular claim.

[SteveII]

That is NOT what the meme said. It specifically said 'reject'. So for your example to be analogous, you would say I 'reject' the proposition that the man is guilty (meme: reject what you have failed to prove). If you did, the meaning would be that he is innocent--an assertion. But your analogy actually has another problem: even concluding that the evidence is insufficient is itself an assertion that the evidence is insufficient. 

Which brings us to the broader problem: I think the only way to rescue the idea that atheism make no assertions is there can be zero evidence. But there is some presented, so you are stuck passing judgement on that evidence.

So, lets sat I reject the evidence presented by the prosecution for the man's guilt. I can still find him not guilty, but I am not asserting he is innocent.

As a juror, I am tasked to either vote guilty or not guilty. I am not tasked to vote guilty or innocent.

You are making a judgement on the quality of evidence and registering that conclusion. Presumably you have reasons why you don't think they are conclusive of guilt. Any reasoning and conclusions are not simply a "lack of belief" as to the question. You made a series of conclusions and believe those conclusions to be true.

You are trying to answer 2 prongs of a dilemma at the same time. Which is a logical no-no.

Here's an even simpler example.

Let's say there is a jar with an unknown number of gumballs in it. Without knowing, someone asserts that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. If I disbelieve their claim, I am not asserting that there is an odd number in the jar. If they made the assertion that there is in an odd number, I would also disbelieve that claim.

You have described an assertion. There is no evidence presented so this is not a useful analogy.

Now, let's say they claim to have passages in an old text that they interpret as meaning there is an even number. Or they claim a supernatural being communicated to them that there is an even number. Would I have any more reason to believe their assertion? What am I asserting by not believing their assertion?

They are no longer assertions. You now have shifted to examination and judging of reasons and possible evidence. If you conclude the evidence is insufficient, we'll, that is a conclusion that has reasons behind it. Not simply a lack of belief or a dismissal of an assertion.

---

---

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Because it's not evidence it's only asserted by the theist as such .

You are completely wrong and believing that is what is going on is nonsense. If there are facts or information to be considered, there is no longer an assertion being made. At its base, evidence is a positive epistemic consideration.  You have made a judgement as to what those facts and information support. You have a belief as to their conclusions.

---

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Because it is bad evidence.

Old texts, flawed philosophical arguments (Kalam, ontological, teleological), personal experience, and all that theists present as evidence, is just not good evidence.

Fine. You don't think they are good evidence. That is not the point. Let's take the easy one: if you say someone's personal experience is wrongly attributed, you have made an assertion because you don't have non-question-begging reasons why their belief is false. 

The same sorts of evidence that you present here to support the existence of your god, you would never accept that sort of evidence to support the existence of a god you don't believe exists.

Muslim apologists use all the exact same sorts of evidence and arguments you use, for the existence of their god. Why is it not convincing when they use it, but it magically becomes convincing when Christians use it?

That's a red herring. I have a hundreds of reasons/facts/data points/inferences/pieces of information that I think Christianity is true and none of them apply to Muslims--some of them being personal experiences or personal experiences of people I trust and believe.

---

---

Follow that through. Why don't you accept the evidence?

Wait for it...different atheists can have different reasons for not accepting some particular evidence as supporting some particular claim.

An my point is that atheists do make claims and hold beliefs about that evidence. Perhaps different claims, but the simple non-belief thing is nonsense.

[Amarok]

You are completely wrong and believing that is what is going on is nonsense. If there are facts or information to be considered, there is no longer an assertion being made. At its base, evidence is a positive epistemic consideration.  You have made a judgement as to what those facts and information support. You have a belief as to their conclusions.

Nope because their isn't facts or information merely assertion saying that it is . And yes your making positive claims that have no fact or information they are hollow and no i have made no judgement none acceptance is not a judgement . Nor is it a belief only a lack of belief in the non information and non facts presented. So your ploy has again failed .

FYI rejection can be a passive state rather then a willful judgement

[polymath257]

Agreed. And zero evidence has been presented. Hint: Just because you claim something as evidence doesn't automatically make it so.

The position that there is no evidence for God is nonsense and those that make it are confusing the definition of evidence and proof.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof ranges from probabilistic to conclusive.

Are you saying there are no "pieces of information or facts" that are available to analyze on the proposition: God exists?

To be evidence, it must change the probability of the statement being true one way or the other. What evidence actually makes it more likely that a deity exists?

[SteveII]

This is great. Kit actually found a meme about atheism that contradicts itself in just 12 words.

Reject = dismiss as inadequate

Considering the evidence of anything and dismissing it as inadequate for a conclusion is itself an assertion.

In no way does it contradict itself.

Correct, atheism rejects theism because atheism dismisses theism as inadequate, because theism has yet to succeed in proving any of its assertions. (1)

If there was any real evidence upon which theism could lean, only then would the meme be an assertion.(2)

Yes it does. Two points about your comments. 

1. You have set a threshold for proof. That itself is a belief about where that threshold should be as evidenced by the the fact that billions upon billions of people that have set that threshold somewhere else. So right there you have one belief (claim) that can be scrutinized. 
2. You care confusing the definitions of evidence and proof. Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. It is a false statement to say there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then your meme is an assertion. 

---

The position that there is no evidence for God is nonsense and those that make it are confusing the definition of evidence and proof.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof ranges from probabilistic to conclusive.

Are you saying there are no "pieces of information or facts" that are available to analyze on the proposition: God exists?

If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of god, there would be no need for atheism, but of course you prefer to use an apologetic blame wrapped in semantics to cover the fact that theists are prone to boldly misusing dictionary definitions to suit their theistic needs.

There is, in fact, absolutely no "pieces of information or facts" available to prove the existence of god.

I know word definitions are tough and being precise is overrated. 

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

---

You are completely wrong and believing that is what is going on is nonsense. If there are facts or information to be considered, there is no longer an assertion being made. At its base, evidence is a positive epistemic consideration.  You have made a judgement as to what those facts and information support. You have a belief as to their conclusions.

Nope because their isn't facts or information merely assertion saying that it is . And yes your making positive claims that have no fact or information they are hollow and no i have made no judgement none acceptance is not a judgement . Nor is it a belief only a lack of belief in the non information and non facts presented. So your ploy has again failed .

FYI rejection can be a passive state rather then a willful judgement

Wow. So you argument is basically

1. The NT, the early church, the personal experiences of billions of people is not information or facts because I failed to believe they are information or facts.


that's it. There is no #2. 

I think question-begging would be a step up from that.

[Amarok]

Wow. So you argument is basically

1. The NT, the early church, the personal experiences of billions of people is not information or facts because I failed to believe they are information or facts.

The NT is not evidence, information or fact it is thus not accepted 

The experience of people is not evidence,information or fact no matter how many it is . Thus it not accepted

The early churches spotty history is the same . Thus it not accepted

All of this fails as a case for theism thus it is not accepted. So once again Atheism is based on your failure to make a case not any assertion the Atheist is making .

I think question-begging would be a step up from that.

You would think that wouldn't you

[Succubus]

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

The experiences of billions of people are religion induced delusions.
Besides facts are not established via a popularity vote, if there were one more Muslim in the world than Christian would your Christian god then become a false god?

[Amarok]

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm.

Nope it's simply not accepting claims made that these are evidences for the conclusion being asserted .And by the way that's not the same as saying they are wrong .

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

They simply don't . And thank you for declaring ahead of time you'll declare anything we present as question begging. That's very useful .

[SteveII]

The position that there is no evidence for God is nonsense and those that make it are confusing the definition of evidence and proof.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof ranges from probabilistic to conclusive.

Are you saying there are no "pieces of information or facts" that are available to analyze on the proposition: God exists?

To be evidence, it must change the probability of the statement being true one way or the other. What evidence actually makes it more likely that a deity exists?

The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

[Amarok]

The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

Once again this was already addressed none of this helps you