Where is the Evidence for Atheism?

Where is the Evidence for Atheism?

There are 305 comments on the News24 story from Feb 25, 2013, titled Where is the Evidence for Atheism?. In it, News24 reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#21 Mar 3, 2013
Correction to end of post 20: Where religion interferes in science, the law, politics or education it becomes open to criticism like anything else.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#22 Mar 3, 2013
Come to think of it, religion should be open to criticism anyway!:-)

(I don't think it the funniest bit, but its good!)

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#23 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
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.
If you want to take Dawkins' word on anything, go ahead.

I don't. That's because he's a proven liar.

SupaAFC

Kirriemuir, UK

#24 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is a positive claim that no deity exists.
When you can define atheism in positive terms without any negatives (ie "not", "without", "no") then atheism will be a positive belief. Simply rephrasing it as "belief in no god" does not make it a positive.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#25 Mar 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
Correction to end of post 20: Where religion interferes in science, the law, politics or education it becomes open to criticism like anything else.
Here in the U.S. we have a Constitution. It is the basis for all our law.

It is involved in politics, and children are educated about it.

This Constitution is based on the premise that human beings have rights that derive from being created by God.

Are you suggesting we ditch our Constitution and laws?

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#26 Mar 3, 2013
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_...

This constitution lardass?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here in the U.S. we have a Constitution. It is the basis for all our law.
It is involved in politics, and children are educated about it.
This Constitution is based on the premise that human beings have rights that derive from being created by God.
Are you suggesting we ditch our Constitution and laws?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#27 Mar 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
When you can define atheism in positive terms without any negatives (ie "not", "without", "no") then atheism will be a positive belief. Simply rephrasing it as "belief in no god" does not make it a positive.
Atheism is the belief that existence is god-free.

There ye go. Now it's a positive belief.

But it is not necessary to phrase it this way for it to be a positive belief. You are confusing two elements - the nature of the claim, and the claim itself.

The claim itself is a positive one. The nature of the claim is negative toward the existence of god.

If I claim my foot is 18 inches long, and someone claims it is only 17 inches long, the second person is making a positive claim.

The nature of his claim is negative in regards to the existence of my 18 inch foot.

But it's a positive claim.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#28 Mar 3, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_...
This constitution lardass?
<quoted text>
No, not that one.

The title you linked to is "separation of church and state".

No such thing is in the U.S. Constitution.

The only constitution I'm aware of with that is the constitution of the old Soviet Union.

The USSR constitution might be your preference. It's not mine.

You Moron.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#29 Mar 3, 2013
No proof for god? No reason to believe for us non superstitious types.

Hard for you slower witted types to grasp but you make the claim a god exists, the burden of proof is on you even though you hate it so like a green leafy vegetable or a treadmill.

When you are able to show such proof of a god we will eagerly consider it. Until then your god goes on the shelf beside the Kraken and Loki.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is the belief that existence is god-free.
There ye go. Now it's a positive belief.
But it is not necessary to phrase it this way for it to be a positive belief. You are confusing two elements - the nature of the claim, and the claim itself.
The claim itself is a positive one. The nature of the claim is negative toward the existence of god.
If I claim my foot is 18 inches long, and someone claims it is only 17 inches long, the second person is making a positive claim.
The nature of his claim is negative in regards to the existence of my 18 inch foot.
But it's a positive claim.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#30 Mar 3, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
No proof for god? No reason to believe for us non superstitious types.
Hard for you slower witted types to grasp but you make the claim a god exists, the burden of proof is on you even though you hate it so like a green leafy vegetable or a treadmill.
When you are able to show such proof of a god we will eagerly consider it. Until then your god goes on the shelf beside the Kraken and Loki.
<quoted text>
You obviously hate yourself.

You need help.
MagskBob

Brattleboro, VT

#31 Mar 3, 2013
There is scientific evidence that the christian god can not/does not answer prayer in spite of the biblical "when two or three are gathered together in my name - all will be done in heaven (paraphrasing)

The double blind study of cardiac success failed to find a result for any 'christian prayer group' better than chance ( a flip of a coin)quite contrary to the "accepted word of god". I need no more proof added to the multitude of error the "word of god" contains.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#32 Mar 3, 2013
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
Nope, you're wrong in all your assertions.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#33 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is the belief that existence is god-free.
There ye go. Now it's a positive belief.
But it is not necessary to phrase it this way for it to be a positive belief. You are confusing two elements - the nature of the claim, and the claim itself.
The claim itself is a positive one. The nature of the claim is negative toward the existence of god.
If I claim my foot is 18 inches long, and someone claims it is only 17 inches long, the second person is making a positive claim.
The nature of his claim is negative in regards to the existence of my 18 inch foot.
But it's a positive claim.
Nope, it's still an absence of a claim.
SupaAFC

Kirriemuir, UK

#34 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is the belief that existence is god-free.
There ye go. Now it's a positive belief.
And by free you mean absence which is a negative.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But it is not necessary to phrase it this way for it to be a positive belief. You are confusing two elements - the nature of the claim, and the claim itself. The claim itself is a positive one.
If it were a positive claim then the claim would be that God exists.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The nature of the claim is negative toward the existence of god.
So therefore, the claim itself is negative.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If I claim my foot is 18 inches long, and someone claims it is only 17 inches long, the second person is making a positive claim.
The nature of his claim is negative in regards to the existence of my 18 inch foot.
But it's a positive claim.
The problem with your analogy, however, is that in the atheism case we are not claiming that, contrary to the Christian God, the Hindu Gods exist instead. That would be akin to your analogy. Taking the position of deities not existing would be like taking the position that your foot is not 18 inches long. That is all atheism would be in your analogy.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#35 Mar 3, 2013
Blood sugar getting low lardass and you are upset over no more Hostess?

I understand you hate that we believe on actual observable evidence and not just good feelings and wishes like your ilk does.

Separation of church and state is vitally important. If you wish to live in a theocracy Iran awaits.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously hate yourself.
You need help.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#36 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Atheism isn't an "ism"' it is specifically the lack of an ism. It is not the atheist who denies the gods existence, that is the non-believer who has rejected the god claims. The atheist and the non-believer are quite often one and the same, but not always.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#37 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't employ a word containing "theism" and also avoid the concept of gods.
Yes you can.

One small problem with your ascertaition: The word atheism, means without theism, or minus theism, or the lack of theism, or a complete dearth of theism. It means no theism. All are proper, in defining this word.

There is "no theism" in this connotation, it is lacking. The gods are neither there, nor not there in this application of word "atheism".

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#38 Mar 3, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is the belief that existence is god-free.
There ye go. Now it's a positive belief.
But it is not necessary to phrase it this way for it to be a positive belief. You are confusing two elements - the nature of the claim, and the claim itself.
The claim itself is a positive one. The nature of the claim is negative toward the existence of god.
If I claim my foot is 18 inches long, and someone claims it is only 17 inches long, the second person is making a positive claim.
The nature of his claim is negative in regards to the existence of my 18 inch foot.
But it's a positive claim.
Adeism is the belief that existence is god-free.

<<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<

That is the way you should have started the post.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#39 Mar 3, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
And by free you mean absence which is a negative.
<quoted text>
If it were a positive claim then the claim would be that God exists.
<quoted text>
So therefore, the claim itself is negative.
<quoted text>
The problem with your analogy, however, is that in the atheism case we are not claiming that, contrary to the Christian God, the Hindu Gods exist instead. That would be akin to your analogy. Taking the position of deities not existing would be like taking the position that your foot is not 18 inches long. That is all atheism would be in your analogy.
No.

Any claim for the existence or non-existence of X can be a positive and also negative claim.

Accepting any set of positive facts also requires acceptance of negative facts, and vice versa.

You don't understand philosophical polemics.



Since: May 10

Location hidden

#40 Mar 3, 2013
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Adeism is the belief that existence is god-free.
<<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<
That is the way you should have started the post.
It has the exact same meaning as "atheism is the belief that no god exists".

It is the same truth claim. Both are positive claims. The set of facts claimed changes none at all if the internal semantics are changed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min ChristineM 24,871
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min Into The Night 52,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 24 min Dogen 475
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 53 min ChristineM 11,440
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Richardfs 22,158
A Proof That God Exists (Mar '13) 2 hr hpcaban 1,936
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Eagle 12 215
More from around the web