Where is the Evidence for Atheism?

Feb 25, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

Christians hear it all the time in one form or another from atheists and sceptics.

Comments
1 - 20 of 305 Comments Last updated Mar 7, 2013
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

All atheism is is the lack of a belief in a god. This really isn't that complicated and no evidence is required.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

The evidence for atheism is the fact that many people don't believe in deities. Lol this shouldn't be difficult people even for theists of limited IQ.
Just Think wrote:
All atheism is is the lack of a belief in a god. This really isn't that complicated and no evidence is required.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

1

1

Duh, where is the evidence, the evidence that proves atheism? The evidence is with your evidence of a god. It is non-existent. Yeah , believe it or not, atheism is non-existent, and so is any evidence that it exists. It is the absence of theism. You don't understand that do you? The way I am explaining it, you just know that I am wrong, because you can see no evidence of a religion, in something that doesn't exist, now can you?

It's true, atheism doesn't exist. And there can be no religion in the non-existent.

The letter "A" in front of "theism" means that there is no theism there. Really, and the word atheist, simply means that the person is not a theist. So do you get that I am an atheist? OK, I am also a non-believer do not believe that any gods have ever existed. I have no theism, which makes me atheist only, and I do not believe, so that makes me a non-believer. Clear yet?

“Handsome white and black men”

Since: Jan 10

Interracial love

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

Prove your god, then I will drop my atheism.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

5

It's called a default, it's what happens when there is no evidence to support the assertions.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

1

emperorjohn wrote:
Prove your god, then I will drop my atheism.
Me too, I'd believe it was real, yes, but it wouldn't be enough to make me bow down to it.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

The "evidence" for atheism, is the exact same evidence every believer in a particular 'god' uses to dismiss the notion of every other 'god' worshiped now or in the past. The difference is atheists apply the same reasoning to ALL claims of 'gods'
redneck

Myrtle Creek, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

What evidence is there for fairies? None, so do you belive in fairies? No, but but yet here you are say you most have evidence to stop believing in God... why the double stranded?

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Makes no sense that I must have evidence to not believe in something.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

To simplify the above, no evidence is required when finding a set of assertions unconvincing. Atheists find the arguments supporting the existence of deities and the religions that worship them unconvincing. They can be persuaded them to change their minds only by a convincing argument based on solid, verifiable evidence. They, however, have no obligation to provide evidence of any kind unless they are trying to convince theists to reject their religions.

But that's not usually the case on this forum. The atheists here attack religion mostly in response to theists who insist on demanding explanations for atheism. If said theists actually wanted to understand atheists' thinking, that wouldn't be so bad, but so far all have come either to express their anger or hatred of atheists or to present arguments that, while uninteresting and uninsightful, nevertheless require responses.

I've gotten to the point where I'm content to let them be. I can't help but wonder what they'd do if none of us bothered to respond to them at all.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

NightSerf wrote:
To simplify the above, no evidence is required when finding a set of assertions unconvincing. Atheists find the arguments supporting the existence of deities and the religions that worship them unconvincing. They can be persuaded them to change their minds only by a convincing argument based on solid, verifiable evidence. They, however, have no obligation to provide evidence of any kind unless they are trying to convince theists to reject their religions.
But that's not usually the case on this forum. The atheists here attack religion mostly in response to theists who insist on demanding explanations for atheism. If said theists actually wanted to understand atheists' thinking, that wouldn't be so bad, but so far all have come either to express their anger or hatred of atheists or to present arguments that, while uninteresting and uninsightful, nevertheless require responses.
I've gotten to the point where I'm content to let them be. I can't help but wonder what they'd do if none of us bothered to respond to them at all.
You are wrong in the entirety of your post.

Atheism is a positive claim that no deity exists. The attempt to modify terms of the atheist claim began, most likely, with Antony Flew in 1972 in "Presumption of Atheism". Flew readily admitted he was making an etymological attempt at reframing the debate. In other words, as an atheist, he attempted to win the argument by changing the terms to give his side the advantage.

The advantage would be to place atheism in the position of default - simply as objective skepticism. The agnostics objected, and the honest atheists objected, both being comfortable with how their position had been defined for hundreds of years.

The manipulated terms caught on well among dishonest atheists, and those too cowardly or incompetent in their view to muster a reasoned argument.

It thrives here on Topix, for obvious reasons.

Atheism is a belief, no less than theism, in a conclusion that exceeds what can be objectively demonstrated.

As was noted by Uri Nodelman, chief editor of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"For some, who consider themselves atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to WATER DOWN (emphasis mine) a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they rejected."

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,(the preeminent reference tool for philosophy):

"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."

Enclyclopedia Brittannica:

"Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty."

For integrity sake, you need to retract your post in full, and then apologize
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Like many atheists, I'm uninterested in religion per se. My concern is all the damage it does.

People forget or don't notice that atheism and secularism are religious terms in that without god(s) or religion they are of little use or interest to anyone...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheistic

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong in the entirety of your post.
Atheism is a positive claim that no deity exists. The attempt to modify terms of the atheist claim began, most likely, with Antony Flew in 1972 in "Presumption of Atheism". Flew readily admitted he was making an etymological attempt at reframing the debate. In other words, as an atheist, he attempted to win the argument by changing the terms to give his side the advantage.
The advantage would be to place atheism in the position of default - simply as objective skepticism. The agnostics objected, and the honest atheists objected, both being comfortable with how their position had been defined for hundreds of years.
The manipulated terms caught on well among dishonest atheists, and those too cowardly or incompetent in their view to muster a reasoned argument.
It thrives here on Topix, for obvious reasons.
Atheism is a belief, no less than theism, in a conclusion that exceeds what can be objectively demonstrated.
As was noted by Uri Nodelman, chief editor of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"For some, who consider themselves atheists in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to WATER DOWN (emphasis mine) a perfectly good concept. For others, who
consider themselves agnostics in the traditional sense, Flew's efforts seemed to be an attempt to re-label them "atheists" -- a term they rejected."
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy,(the preeminent reference tool for philosophy):
"Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief."
Enclyclopedia Brittannica:
"Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty."
For integrity sake, you need to retract your post in full, and then apologize
"Atheism is a positive claim that no deity exists" Let me start by saying that I my self make this claim, but the last time I looked around the atheist bloging sites I'm in a very small minority.
So I want you to name 3 prominent atheists (i.e. on the same/similar level as Dawkins or Hich) with a quote with a source stating that they donít just think that beveling in gods are unjustifiable but that God for certain do not exist. I await you probable failure.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Until relatively recent historical times, atheists have had no significant public voice in most societies for two reasons: our numbers have been too small and the expression of atheist views have tended to be suppressed with threats of violence and/or prosecution. For that reason, defining atheism has been left to its religious antagonists. It is hardly surprising, then, that many "authoritative" sources have got it wrong. But now that atheism is arising as a significant element in many societies around the world, the time has come for atheists themselves to redefine the word that describes us.

For an apt definition of Judaism, no competent lexicographer would rely on the views common among anti-Semites, not would one look to the KKK for a synopsis of the Black experience in the U. S.. And on the flip side, the way atheists have defined Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular on this forum has been obviously far too biased to provide any basis for defining either of those words.

Is the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy really "the preeminent reference tool for philosophy"? It seems unlikely that a book that has been in publication for so short a time (first pushed in 1998) could have reached that stature in a field that has existed for more years than Routledge has entries. It seems no greater in stature than The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or another that is published by Macmillan. As more atheist writers emerge over the course of this century, all of those references are likely to revise their entries to reflect atheist thought as opposed to theist bias, evident in the Routledge entry by its capitalization of the word "god," which limits its definition to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim deity.

The Brittanica entry cited above gets agnosticism wrong as well as atheism, defining it as leaving "leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable." Both classical and modern agnosticism are about the nature of knowledge itself more than about God or gods, which is why and atheist can also be agnostic--or not. Most of the atheists in this forum are also agnostics.

The atheists in this forum seem to represent modern atheism reasonably well. Some do indeed reject absolutely the possibility that deities of any kind exist, but most, like me, reject religion because nothing that they've heard, read, or experienced has been sufficient to overcome their natural skepticism. Some are quite hostile to religion, others tolerant of even respectful of it. I tend toward the latter.

In the coming decades, the views of atheist writers are likely to have more weight in matters about atheism than they have in the past. Best get used to it.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Good post Nightserf, but I don't think anyone need define atheism beyond the dictionary. It is essentially a religious term. Without god(s) or religion it's of little use.

And I see 'atheism arising' as a misperception. I think is it more accurate and better to say that religion is the last bastion of superstition and is retreating in the face of education and science.

Your post (while I agree with it) might be seen as slightly conflicting with those points.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

NightSerf wrote:
Until relatively recent historical times, atheists have had no significant public voice in most societies for two reasons: our numbers have been too small and the expression of atheist views have tended to be suppressed with threats of violence and/or prosecution. For that reason, defining atheism has been left to its religious antagonists. It is hardly surprising, then, that many "authoritative" sources have got it wrong. But now that atheism is arising as a significant element in many societies around the world, the time has come for atheists themselves to redefine the word that describes us.
For an apt definition of Judaism, no competent lexicographer would rely on the views common among anti-Semites, not would one look to the KKK for a synopsis of the Black experience in the U. S.. And on the flip side, the way atheists have defined Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular on this forum has been obviously far too biased to provide any basis for defining either of those words.
Is the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy really "the preeminent reference tool for philosophy"? It seems unlikely that a book that has been in publication for so short a time (first pushed in 1998) could have reached that stature in a field that has existed for more years than Routledge has entries. It seems no greater in stature than The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or another that is published by Macmillan. As more atheist writers emerge over the course of this century, all of those references are likely to revise their entries to reflect atheist thought as opposed to theist bias, evident in the Routledge entry by its capitalization of the word "god," which limits its definition to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim deity.
The Brittanica entry cited above gets agnosticism wrong as well as atheism, defining it as leaving "leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable." Both classical and modern agnosticism are about the nature of knowledge itself more than about God or gods, which is why and atheist can also be agnostic--or not. Most of the atheists in this forum are also agnostics.
The atheists in this forum seem to represent modern atheism reasonably well. Some do indeed reject absolutely the possibility that deities of any kind exist, but most, like me, reject religion because nothing that they've heard, read, or experienced has been sufficient to overcome their natural skepticism. Some are quite hostile to religion, others tolerant of even respectful of it. I tend toward the latter.
In the coming decades, the views of atheist writers are likely to have more weight in matters about atheism than they have in the past. Best get used to it.
That doesn't seem like a retraction, so I guess you opted-out on the integrity angle.

I will give you 3 prominent atheists who believe that non-existence of a god is a certainty. Actually, I give credit to you for mentioning them first - Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

Finding exact statements to the point from them is trickier, since they are liars. All 3 attempt the same dodge you advocate, that is, simply feigning unbelief. Their profession of faith - atheism - leaks out when not asked directly, as when they write books entitled "The God Delusion", or "The End of Faith".

Particulary gratifying was when Hitchens, during their debate, was backed into a corner on this by William Lane Craig. When pinned down on his philosophy, given all available choices of non-theism, to name his, Hitchens started mumbling his way into a rambling discourse on Thomas Huxley.



I know you guys like the back of my hand.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

EdSed wrote:
Good post Nightserf, but I don't think anyone need define atheism beyond the dictionary. It is essentially a religious term. Without god(s) or religion it's of little use.
And I see 'atheism arising' as a misperception. I think is it more accurate and better to say that religion is the last bastion of superstition and is retreating in the face of education and science.
Your post (while I agree with it) might be seen as slightly conflicting with those points.
If one does not want to embrace atheism, they should not call themselves an atheist.

Think of another term. Try being honest.

What is abundantly clear is the "atheists" on these pages who deny that atheism is a positive belief in fact possess the positive belief - that god does not exist.

The watering down of the term is simply a tool for seeming rationally superior.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

EdSed wrote:
Like many atheists, I'm uninterested in religion per se. My concern is all the damage it does.
People forget or don't notice that atheism and secularism are religious terms in that without god(s) or religion they are of little use or interest to anyone...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheistic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism
You can't employ a word containing "theism" and also avoid the concept of gods.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Richard Dawkins has spoken out against segregation of British schoolchildren according to the religious delusions of their parents. Good job it isn't left to religionists..
From:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8814...
"I spoke to a group of girls, and to a senior science teacher who believes the world is 6,000 years old.

"It's just utterly deplorable. These are now British children who are having their minds stuffed with alien rubbish."
Unquote.

He is happy to call himself agnostic.

I'm no professor or philosopher like Richard Dawkins, but perhaps he feels like I do? I am happy for religionists to see me as agnostic or atheist as they wish. They are both terms that define one's attitude to god(s) or religion(s). I'm uninterested in religion per se. Where it interferes in religion, science, the law, politics or education it becomes open to criticism like anything else.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••