Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

It still astounds me that theists cannot comprehend the meaning of objective evidence.

Like what? I find that atheists are inconsistent with their principles concerning evidence.

[SteveII]

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.

There are many Roman documents describing the cult of Mithras.  It was very popular from the 1st to 4th century AD.  There are descriptions of the divinity of Mithras, who was born from a rock and ruler of the Sun.  There are many statues and carvings still in existence.  Of course, it was a male-only religion, and secretive, so it wasn't a good choice for Constantine to appropriate.  

But we have a lot of knowledge of their existence, and their practices!  In fact, there are still Mithraist groups!  This must be evidence that Mithras exists, right?

You are missing the entire point of my series of answers. You have looked at the evidence and determined it is lacking (in both cases). You have beliefs and conclusions about the evidence. That is all I am saying. Atheists make positive claims about the adequacy of the evidence--ALL THE TIME. Hiding behind this nonsense about making no claims or assertions is nonsense.

---

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. 

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.

1.  I wonder what makes you use the word threshold.  It simply doesn't fit into your argument, which is why I am always concerned about the theistic worldview and its horrid vocabulary misuse.

2.  If it is a false statement to state there is no evidence for the existence of god, then surely the evidence would be so logically and reasonably overwhelming that everyone would believe in god without a single doubt.  The fact that doubt of god's existence is a reality proves personal belief and personal faith is not evidence of god's existence as much as the theist wished it were thus. 

The bible is certainly evidence that man has a wonderful imagination.  Nothing more.  Experiences of billions of people are individual personal experiences, people sharing personal experiences with others and finding comfort as well as community in those personal experiences, yet there is zero evidence beyond the individual personal perspective to provide proof or truth to religious claims.  Billions of people may think Pepsi is better than Coke, but it does not become a fact or a truth that Pepsi is better than Coke due to the fact that each individual, personal opinion is based subjectively rather than objectively.

You have just confused two things. Evidence and whether that evidence is sufficient for "believe in God without a single doubt" or "to provide proof or truth to religious claims." Confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Simple as that. There is evidence to consider and whether it compels a conclusion is entirely subjective on a persons threshold of proof needed to support a belief. 


You have looked at the evidence and you conclude it is insufficient for proof. Fine. But by definition you have made a claim if you have a conclusion.

[LadyForCamus]

If you’re going to accept large numbers of testimony as sufficient evidence for supernatural claims, you had better be consistent across the board. What about the Mandela effect? Surely there is enough personal testimony out there to reach the reasonable conclusion that the phenomenon is caused by parallel universes slipping in and out of each other, rather than a simple misfiring of the brain’s memory system, yeah?

[polymath257]

There are many Roman documents describing the cult of Mithras.  It was very popular from the 1st to 4th century AD.  There are descriptions of the divinity of Mithras, who was born from a rock and ruler of the Sun.  There are many statues and carvings still in existence.  Of course, it was a male-only religion, and secretive, so it wasn't a good choice for Constantine to appropriate.  

But we have a lot of knowledge of their existence, and their practices!  In fact, there are still Mithraist groups!  This must be evidence that Mithras exists, right?

You are missing the entire point of my series of answers. You have looked at the evidence and determined it is lacking (in both cases). You have beliefs and conclusions about the evidence. That is all I am saying. Atheists make positive claims about the adequacy of the evidence--ALL THE TIME. Hiding behind this nonsense about making no claims or assertions is nonsense.

---

1.  I wonder what makes you use the word threshold.  It simply doesn't fit into your argument, which is why I am always concerned about the theistic worldview and its horrid vocabulary misuse.

2.  If it is a false statement to state there is no evidence for the existence of god, then surely the evidence would be so logically and reasonably overwhelming that everyone would believe in god without a single doubt.  The fact that doubt of god's existence is a reality proves personal belief and personal faith is not evidence of god's existence as much as the theist wished it were thus. 

The bible is certainly evidence that man has a wonderful imagination.  Nothing more.  Experiences of billions of people are individual personal experiences, people sharing personal experiences with others and finding comfort as well as community in those personal experiences, yet there is zero evidence beyond the individual personal perspective to provide proof or truth to religious claims.  Billions of people may think Pepsi is better than Coke, but it does not become a fact or a truth that Pepsi is better than Coke due to the fact that each individual, personal opinion is based subjectively rather than objectively.

You have just confused two things. Evidence and whether that evidence is sufficient "believe in God without a single doubt" or "to provide proof or truth to religious claims." Confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Simple as that. There is evidence to consider and whether it compels a conclusion is entirely subjective on a persons threshold of proof needed to support a belief. 


You have looked at the evidence and you conclude it is insufficient for proof. Fine. But by definition you have made a claim if you have a conclusion.

Here's the point: does the fact that a large number of people believe *in and of itself* an idea give evidence that the idea is true?

I would say no. People are inclined to believe any number of strange ideas and the mere fact that a large number of people believe an idea doesn't change the probability that the idea is true.

What *might* change that probability is the *reason* that the people believe that idea: in other words, the *evidence* they used to reach that conclusion. But, if there is *no* evidence, or if the purported 'evidence' doesn't, in fact, have a bearing on the truth of that idea, then it really *isn't evidence* because it cannot change the probability that the idea is true.

There are a great many things people *claim* as evidence when, if actually investigated, doesn't move the likelihood truth one direction or the other.

[SteveII]

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.

None of which is evidence of a deity: knowledge of those historical events doesn't change the probability of a deity existing by one bit.

---

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. 

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.

---

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.

No, they are not information or evidence because the confounds are so extreme as to make the evidence useless for any conclusion.

The experiences of people are evidence only that people have certain experiences under emotional stress. That is an interesting neurological fact about the human species, but doesn't support the existence of a deity.

Your answer seems to be that my list is not evidence because it is insufficient. Setting aside that that is question begging, by that logic then no single piece of information could ever be evidence because by itself it would never be sufficient. 

Your last paragraph is nothing but assertions (defined as a claim without evidence). You can't possibly know what other people experience or don't experience.

[polymath257]

None of which is evidence of a deity: knowledge of those historical events doesn't change the probability of a deity existing by one bit.

---

No, they are not information or evidence because the confounds are so extreme as to make the evidence useless for any conclusion.

The experiences of people are evidence only that people have certain experiences under emotional stress. That is an interesting neurological fact about the human species, but doesn't support the existence of a deity.

Your answer seems to be that my list is not evidence because it is insufficient. Setting aside that that is question begging, by that logic then no single piece of information could ever be evidence because by itself it would never be sufficient. 

Your last paragraph is nothing but assertions (defined as a claim without evidence). You can't possibly know what other people experience or don't experience.

No, I am not saying it is insufficient. I'm saying it doesn't shift the probabilities of the idea being true or not.

As for the last sentence, that is *precisely* why it isn't evidence: knowing their claim of an experience doesn't change the probability the claim is true.

[Simon Moon]

Your last paragraph is nothing but assertions (defined as a claim without evidence). You can't possibly know what other people experience or don't experience.

The plural of "anecdote" does not become evidence.

And again, how much special pleading can you possibly be guilty of?

You would never accept, as being evidence, Hindus or Muslims reporting experiences that they claim are their god. Nor would you accept the claims of other religious texts, the amount of time other religions have existed, or any other of the same sorts of evidence you offer for the truth of your religion.

[Mister Agenda]

And 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.

The claims of agnostic atheists don't include 'there is no God'. We don't claim to make no claims about anything. The only claim inherent to atheism is the definition: that it's the state of not believing in any deities. The only claim inherent to identifying as an atheist is that the definition of atheism applies to their mental state concerning deities. Of course we have opinions on the soundness of the evidence presented, who says we don't? Your 'point' seems like a non sequitur to me.

---

Your post that quoted suggests quite the opposite.

Otherwise, your statement is about as useful as saying the sky is blue. Sure, atheists assert things all of the time. So do Christians, Buddhists, Jainists, Jews, Muslims, etc.

That was the point, when atheists make assertions about God or Christians, or anything else it is reasonable to ask them why they believe that!  If they call Christians delusional, or claim the Bible is fiction or just stories, then that is making an assertion.  I find that many atheists have trouble not making assertions about what they believe (at least on the internets).  And many of the same will run to a false equivocation of the definition above, when confronted.  While not always it often seems like a cop out. There is a lot of pseudo skepticism around. That was all I was commenting on.  If that doesn’t apply to you....then good

There's a difference between assertions you expect other people to accept without support, and opinions. Not everything someone says is a component of an argument. I think the supernatural claims of Christians as fanciful as the supernatural claims of anyone else. I don't feel the need to support that, it's self-evident to me and I'm not interested in convincing you that I'm right. I wouldn't start a thread about it, for instance. Ultimately, it's my opinion, and clearly your mileage varies. I don't expect you to be convinced just because I said it, and I have no obligation to support it unless I want you to believe it enough to make the effort. Now, if you want to persuade me otherwise, you're welcome to try. If you challenge me to support the contention, I may or may not choose to accept that challenge. If I don't particularly care whether you agree with me about it or not, I may decline without implication that I'm wrong.

In common language, you are expected to be able to distinguish when someone is stating their opinion or making an assertion, even if they don't use qualifiers like 'I find'. Sometimes it can be a subtle difference, but that's what clarifying questions are for.

Now if I said 'Road Runner runs to false equivocation when confronted about a certain definition and engages in pseudo-skepticism', that's a matter of fact that I should be able to support with specific examples if it's true, and since it's kind of insulting to Road Runner, I shouldn't say it unless I'm ready to back it up. It's a claim about Road Runner's behavior, and I should expect Road Runner to challenge me on it, especially if I know it's a mischaracterization. The context makes it clear I'm making an assertion about Road Runner, I'm stating it like it's a fact and the claim falls in the realm of something I ought to be able to demonstrate if it's true.

It's an unsupported assertion (and seems like a cop-out) when you vaguely refer to some atheists somewhere resorting to false equivocation when confronted without providing any specific examples, but you do you. I'd note that if those atheists aren't here on this forum, they're not really relevant to the issue at hand, and if they are, you should be able to quote them.

It doesn't apply to me, and I'm not sure it applies to anyone on the forum who could reasonably be described as a skeptic. I could be wrong, but I guess I'll never know unless you support your assertion. It doesn't apply to me and I doubt your testimony about it...but that's just my opinion.

---

It still astounds me that theists cannot comprehend the meaning of objective evidence.

Like what?  I find that atheists are inconsistent with their principles concerning evidence.

Who cares what you find? You never back your claims about atheists up with examples, which would be a bare beginning for supporting the notion that the inconsistency you 'find' is characteristic.

---

You are missing the entire point of my series of answers. You have looked at the evidence and determined it is lacking (in both cases). You have beliefs and conclusions about the evidence. That is all I am saying. Atheists make positive claims about the adequacy of the evidence--ALL THE TIME. Hiding behind this nonsense about making no claims or assertions is nonsense.

The atheists you're arguing with seem to be confined to your head.

---

You have looked at the evidence and you conclude it is insufficient for proof. Fine. But by definition you have made a claim if you have a conclusion.

No shit, Sherlock.

[SteveII]

Let me repeat this one more time .WERE NOT ASSERTING THEIR WRONG !. Only that they case for belief sucks. And their supposed evidence simply is not .

It really us that simple. I thought my courtroom analogy would help, but sadly it did not.

You and Tiz are not saying the same thing. He believes there is no evidence at all, therefore... This is nonsense and intellectually indefensible.

---

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.

Yes, I am making judgements on the evidence that it is not sufficient to prove the defendant guilty. I lack belief that the defendant is guilty. This does not mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. It means that the prosecutor's case failed to meet its burden of proof.

I may believe the defendant is innocent, but that is a different prong of the dilemma. And, just like the defense does not have to prove his client innocent in a court, I do not have to defend the position that I believe gods do not exist in a debate.

Sure, you lack belief that the defendant is guilty. Fine. But you don't have merely a lack of belief in his guilt. You have a belief about the body of evidence presented. You have drawn conclusions from information and facts and have a definite opinion on a variety of points. You have many beliefs related to the subject. 

You wouldn't have to defend your "lack of belief" in God per se if that is all it was. You, and a lot of atheists, want it to be merely a lack of belief because then you think your criticizing of other people's beliefs don't need to be justified. I am proving that for almost all atheists, they actually hold many beliefs related to the question. It is disingenuous to say otherwise. The moment you are critical of another's belief, you automatically shoulder a burden to support your criticism.

---

You are missing the entire point of my series of answers. You have looked at the evidence and determined it is lacking (in both cases). You have beliefs and conclusions about the evidence. That is all I am saying. Atheists make positive claims about the adequacy of the evidence--ALL THE TIME. Hiding behind this nonsense about making no claims or assertions is nonsense.

---

You have just confused two things. Evidence and whether that evidence is sufficient "believe in God without a single doubt" or "to provide proof or truth to religious claims." Confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'. Simple as that. There is evidence to consider and whether it compels a conclusion is entirely subjective on a persons threshold of proof needed to support a belief. 


You have looked at the evidence and you conclude it is insufficient for proof. Fine. But by definition you have made a claim if you have a conclusion.

Here's the point: does the fact that a large number of people believe *in and of itself* an idea give evidence that the idea is true? 

I would say no. People are inclined to believe any number of strange ideas and the mere fact that a large number of people believe an idea doesn't change the probability that the idea is true.

What *might* change that probability is the *reason* that the people believe that idea: in other words, the *evidence* they used to reach that conclusion. But, if there is *no* evidence, or if the purported 'evidence' doesn't, in fact, have a bearing on the truth of that idea, then it really *isn't evidence* because it cannot change the probability that the idea is true.

There are a great many things people *claim* as evidence when, if actually investigated, doesn't move the likelihood truth one direction or the other.

The NT is entirely filled with the reasons why they believe the way they do. Every one of the 1000+ events chronicled "have a bearing on the truth of that idea." There, you just supported that the NT is evidence as to the question: is there a God.

---

Your answer seems to be that my list is not evidence because it is insufficient. Setting aside that that is question begging, by that logic then no single piece of information could ever be evidence because by itself it would never be sufficient. 

Your last paragraph is nothing but assertions (defined as a claim without evidence). You can't possibly know what other people experience or don't experience.

No, I am not saying it is insufficient. I'm saying it doesn't shift the probabilities of the idea being true or not.

As for the last sentence, that is *precisely* why it isn't evidence: knowing their claim of an experience doesn't change the probability the claim is true.

Are you saying that if a million people report a changed life, a new outlook, a feeling of the presence of God, and a sense of leading of the Holy Spirit is the same as absolutely no one reporting those things? It seems like you need that to be true to make your point. 

If that is your point, then let's change it a little. What if a million people saw an event (say an elephant walked into town and walked out the other side and disappeared never to be seen again). No video, just people and their eyeballs. Is the reporting of what those people saw "change the probability" that that event actually happened? 

One more change. Same scenario but they all saw a man appear out of thin air, say a blessing on everyone, and disappear the same way. Does that "change the probability" that that event actually happened?

[Mister Agenda]

Are you saying that if a million people report a changed life, a new outlook, a feeling of the presence of God, and a sense of leading of the Holy Spirit is the same as absolutely no one reporting those things? It seems like you need that to be true to make your point. 

If a million people reported a changed life, a new outlook, and a feeling of the presence of God; and they were Muslims, would that lean you to accept that Islam is more likely to be truly of God?