Do You Have Any Evidence for Atheism?

[Doubting Thomas]

He's probably now at his Christian forum complaining about how he tried to set those evil atheists right and they banned him.

It's funny how frustrated Christians must be at the lack of evidence for their god so that they have to go the whole "there's no evidence for atheism" route.

[Ace Otana]

They're getting desperate. They seem to be putting more effort into trying to redefine atheism than trying to back up their claims.

[Sciwoman]

Looks to me like he had one screwed-up thought in his head and was trying to find as many ways to say it as he could.

[fr0d0]

Just had a "discussion" with this guy in chat. What a douchebag.

We got talking about free will somehow. He was unfamiliar with the free will/ free agent idea, and rejected the concept on the basis that "they're both the same thing". I linked him a few key articles explaining it, to which he replied that he'd read those (remarkably quickly) and was absolutely convinced that I was wrong. So I asked him to tell me about one of the links, Ryfts brief piece on the subject, and he had no idea what I was talking about.

Must be great be to be so convinced of something you know absolutely zero about. If I didn't know better I would swear this guy belonged to Fred Phelps's gang. Blind, unadulterated hatred and closed minded bigotry.

[Anomalocaris]

Is this you I wonder

No, that can't be him. The troll in the picture still possesses bilateral symmetry.

[Minimalist]

[Doubting Thomas]

They're getting desperate. They seem to be putting more effort into trying to redefine atheism than trying to back up their claims.

My favorite ones are the ones who redefine atheism and then claim that there are no atheists.

Just had a "discussion" with this guy in chat.

... and was absolutely convinced that I was wrong.

Must be great be to be so convinced of something you know absolutely zero about.

I got that impression from this thread. He seemed to have the attitude of "No, your definition is wrong and mine is right" while constantly ignoring any other viewpoint.

[rrpostal]

I will agree that people have issues with these definitions. But it really doesn't matter at all. The only point this guy came remotel close to making was a problem with a specific label. He can call me whatever the heck he wants. If he gets his jollies from beating on a classic strawman he built from the ground up with his own definitions, it's no bother to me. But when you won't even let the person you are talking to tell you what their position is, then you haven't won any argument or acheieved any victory besides being so thick headed and dogmatic that you won't even allow the conversation to begin.

Because I could just as easily find problems with the term agnostic, if that is what he wants to call me. The label does not matter. What, for instance, is a "christian"? Should I feel smug if I tell every christian what the word means and then attack the definition that is not even being defended? No, I'd be a total jackass. And I can't at all see what would be entertaining about such shallow semantic noise.

[Judas BentHer]

Gone and yet the discourse continues. See what banned inspired?

A basic question, do You Have Any Evidence for Atheism?
The basic answer. Yes. No evidence for god.

If there were evidence a god did exist, atheists would have no rational cause to persist. With proof of god, to deny that would be like denying the earth is not flat. People are not bipedal. OK, for the most part. Etc...

Though there's no counting that obstinateness wouldn't take atheism's place.

[Jackalope]

A basic question, do You Have Any Evidence for Atheism?
The basic answer. Yes. No evidence for god.

That's a good basic answer, and certainly one the theists will try to refute. I'm not sure it should be framed that way, even though it is snarky and fun.

One doesn't need evidence (or lack thereof) to not believe in something - atheists make no positive claims.

The positive claim is made by the theist, and the burden is not on us, it's on them, and IMHO (being a noob here) is that the null hypothesis (non-belief) is the default position, and it's on them to prove - to the satisfaction of their target audience (non-believers) - that their deity exists.

For me, the answer is "I don't need evidence to not believe in something(1). If you want to change my mind, prove it - to my satisfaction." Put the ball firmly in their court, and refute with reasoned logic every argument they put it - since we've heard them all, it's not too terribly difficult. They probably won't budge an inch, so it's pretty much just for entertainment value - the tortured "logic" that goes into defending the indefensible and irrational can be amusing.

(1) This of course applies equally to deities, invisible pink unicorns, sasquatch, and any other paranormal or insufficiently substantiated claims. Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster - He is most certainly real. R'amen.