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
61 - 80 of 305 Comments Last updated Mar 7, 2013

Since: Mar 11

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Mar 4, 2013
 
Like it or not fatboy there is a wall of separation between church and state. I copied and pasted it word for word only a Fox News loving retard would think I misquoted it.

But keep loving Fox News it has been an amazing cancer that is destroying the GOP and insuring progressives will gain an maintain more and more control.

:)
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You misquoted the First Amendment. You omitted the free-exercise clause of the amendment.
Secondly, you have no idea what the Establishment Clause of the amendment means.
For instance, you do not know what "establishment of religion" means in this context.
Also, you did not notice that the only governmental body that is limited in any way by the amendment is "Congress".
Do you know what "Congress" means?
If a state or local school district permits a prayer, is that an act of Congress?
I'll give you a hint: No.
You're out of your league, Junior. You know so little about the subject, it is not even fun to argue with you.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Mar 4, 2013
 
Buck Crick in post 14 I gave you a Challenge and despite replying to everyone else who have been calling you out, you ignore me!
Now if you donít want people to think you are a coward name 3 prominent atheists 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 is unjustifiable but that God for certain does not exist.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Like it or not fatboy there is a wall of separation between church and state. I copied and pasted it word for word only a Fox News loving retard would think I misquoted it.
But keep loving Fox News it has been an amazing cancer that is destroying the GOP and insuring progressives will gain an maintain more and more control.
:)
<quoted text>
I didn't say there wasn't.

I simply point out, correctly, that it doesn't come from the Constitution.

It has to come from somewhere else, if it exists.

Any ideas, LiverWarts?

Justice Renquist, dissenting in Wallace, nails it:

" Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unw orkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926).

But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor
based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.

The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion.

Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters.

If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor.

The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Benjamin Frankly wrote:
Buck Crick in post 14 I gave you a Challenge and despite replying to everyone else who have been calling you out, you ignore me!
Now if you donít want people to think you are a coward name 3 prominent atheists 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 is unjustifiable but that God for certain does not exist.

I responded to that same challenge from NightSerf.

I named Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

I illustrated how they will on one occassion say it is "lack of belief". On another, they will say "there is no god".

They are liars, in other words.

Regardless of what today's writers and speaker say, "atheism" remains a belief that no god exists. So you have no point anyhow.

I didn't invent the term. If you don't like what "atheism" means, then don't call yourself an atheist.

It's very simple.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Like it or not fatboy there is a wall of separation between church and state. I copied and pasted it word for word only a Fox News loving retard would think I misquoted it.
But keep loving Fox News it has been an amazing cancer that is destroying the GOP and insuring progressives will gain an maintain more and more control.
:)
<quoted text>
When you quote a misquote of a historical document, you are misquoting.

You ignorant moron.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Observable evidence for god fatboy? Imagination doesn't count.
<quoted text>
After weeks of flapping your lips about it, you ONLY NOW figured out how to properly frame the question!

...after I helped you.

Answer my question:

My dog has no belief and eats his own shit. Is he an atheist?
SupaAFC

Bathgate, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
In every contested case, both sides make a claim that is positive.
If that were the case then both sides would be claiming guilt.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The defense offers either the positive claim that the defendant is "not guilty"
That makes no sense. If it were a positive claim then "not" would not be present in the statement.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
or the positive claim that the evidence does not establish guilt. Claiming a state of facts supporting "not guilty" is a positive claim.
It is a positive claim for an existing set of facts, as opposed to a positive claim for a differing set of facts.
No alternative explanation for X need be provided to make the claim of X, nor the claim of non-X, a positive claim.
You are mixing up alibi with the plea itself. In the Pistorius case, for example, he is arguing that he is not guilty of premeditated murder with an alternative positive claim - that being that he thought his wife was a burglar, and in that period of stress, he killed her.

His alibi, whether true or not, is the positive claim. The plea remains negative.

Atheism has no alibi or alternative foot size. It simply makes an assumption based on a complete absence of evidence. As a result, there is nothing positive about the position.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim of X is also a negative claim, as it is a claim that no set of facts exists for non-X.
This is treading into the negative proof fallacy.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand logic. You don't.
You are arguing that every claim and its counterpart are the same. Guilt and innocence are the same, yes and no are the same, up and down are the same.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim of atheism is a positive claim, as it is a claim that a set of facts exists which causes the conclusion "there is no god".
It is the opposite. Because of the complete -absence- of facts, the conclusion of "no god" is reached.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim of atheism is negative claim, as it is a claim that no set of facts exists which causes the conclusion "there is a god".
Thus meaning that it is not a positive claim. It cannot be both.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Conversely, the claim of theism is a negative claim, as it is a claim that no set of facts exists which causes the conclusion "there is no god".
Well, of course not, because those "facts" do not exist in the first place which leads to conclusion of "no God".
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim of theism is a positive claim, as it is a claim that a set of facts exists which causes the conclusion "there is a god".
Thus theism is a positive claim. All you have done is rearrange afew words here and there to try and argue that two completely points of view are both positive and negative claims.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I can explain it for you; I can't understand it for you.
You are trying to tell me that all claims are the same. It makes no sense whatsoever.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I responded to that same challenge from NightSerf.
I named Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris.
I illustrated how they will on one occassion say it is "lack of belief". On another, they will say "there is no god".
They are liars, in other words.
Regardless of what today's writers and speaker say, "atheism" remains a belief that no god exists. So you have no point anyhow.
I didn't invent the term. If you don't like what "atheism" means, then don't call yourself an atheist.
It's very simple.
I asked for a source Buck just saying the names of books isn't a way to give source, this is a source on pages 73-74 in "The God Delusion" (note page numbers will change depending on what edition you are reading) Dawkins lays out a 1-7 "spectrum of probabilities" with 1 being there is definitely a god, and 7 as there is definitely on god. When Dawkins states were he is, he says "I count myself in category 6, but leaning 7 -I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Now thats a source and in less than 10 minutes, now get to it.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were the case then both sides would be claiming guilt.
<quoted text>
That makes no sense. If it were a positive claim then "not" would not be present in the statement.
<quoted text>
You are mixing up alibi with the plea itself. In the Pistorius case, for example, he is arguing that he is not guilty of premeditated murder with an alternative positive claim - that being that he thought his wife was a burglar, and in that period of stress, he killed her.
His alibi, whether true or not, is the positive claim. The plea remains negative.
Atheism has no alibi or alternative foot size. It simply makes an assumption based on a complete absence of evidence. As a result, there is nothing positive about the position.
<quoted text>
This is treading into the negative proof fallacy.
<quoted text>
You are arguing that every claim and its counterpart are the same. Guilt and innocence are the same, yes and no are the same, up and down are the same.
<quoted text>
It is the opposite. Because of the complete -absence- of facts, the conclusion of "no god" is reached.
<quoted text>
Thus meaning that it is not a positive claim. It cannot be both.
<quoted text>
Well, of course not, because those "facts" do not exist in the first place which leads to conclusion of "no God".
<quoted text>
Thus theism is a positive claim. All you have done is rearrange afew words here and there to try and argue that two completely points of view are both positive and negative claims.
<quoted text>
You are trying to tell me that all claims are the same. It makes no sense whatsoever.
You are an idiot.

The presence of a negative word, "not", in a claim doesn't make it either a negative or positive claim.

If one says "the lights in room 3 are off", that's a positive claim.

If one says "the lights in room 3 are NOT on", that is the exact same assertion that a set of facts is true, and it is a positive claim.

The positive or negative nature of a claim relies only on the context of what set of facts is being asserted in the claim itself, not on a separate claim that is made.

Regarding the lights in room 3:

Positive claim: The lights in room 3 are on.

Negative claim: The lights in room 3 are off.

It makes absolutely no difference if you say:

Negative claim: The lights in room 3 are NOT on.

The same claim is positive or negative depending on what set of facts it is relating to.

A positive claim can be a negative claim, and vice versa.

It's only a semantic distinction.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked for a source Buck just saying the names of books isn't a way to give source, this is a source on pages 73-74 in "The God Delusion" (note page numbers will change depending on what edition you are reading) Dawkins lays out a 1-7 "spectrum of probabilities" with 1 being there is definitely a god, and 7 as there is definitely on god. When Dawkins states were he is, he says "I count myself in category 6, but leaning 7 -I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." Now thats a source and in less than 10 minutes, now get to it.
Do you not realize that you just provided a quote that has Dawkins stating he believes no god exists?

You also bolstered my point that he believes no god exists, but lies about it. Here, in the quote you generously provided, he tries to fudge his position with numbers and a continuum.

In the end, he proves he believes in non-existence of god, exactly the same as he believes in non-existence of fairies in his garden.

If you would like to provide some quotes from Hitchens and Harris to also prove me right, feel free.

"Get to it"?

Go fu**yourself.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>

If that were the case then both sides would be claiming guilt.
<quoted text>
Really? You are an idiot.

Two claims being positive does not make them the same.

Making the positive claim "not guilty" is to positively claim a set of facts being true that is counter to the positive claim of "guilty".

You are trying to say that claiming innocence is the same as claiming guilt, since both are positive claims.(Notice, there is no "not" in claiming "innocence")

But its a positive claim for the truth of the same set of facts as the claim of "not guilty".

I can explain it for you, I can't understand it for you.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Mar 4, 2013
 
No observable proof or evidence for any god Buck. Imagination doesn't count.

Stop abusing and neglecting your dog Buck. Give the poor thing away since you are incapable of properly caring for it.

And get on a treadmill you butt ugly lardass.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
After weeks of flapping your lips about it, you ONLY NOW figured out how to properly frame the question!
...after I helped you.
Answer my question:
My dog has no belief and eats his own shit. Is he an atheist?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Mar 4, 2013
 
Your ignorance is never ending I see. Nobody can present observable evidence for any god hence us people of reason will not believe it.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You are an idiot.
Two claims being positive does not make them the same.
Making the positive claim "not guilty" is to positively claim a set of facts being true that is counter to the positive claim of "guilty".
You are trying to say that claiming innocence is the same as claiming guilt, since both are positive claims.(Notice, there is no "not" in claiming "innocence")
But its a positive claim for the truth of the same set of facts as the claim of "not guilty".
I can explain it for you, I can't understand it for you.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Mar 4, 2013
 
Oh and it's important to have the wall of separation between church and state.
SupaAFC

Bathgate, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot.
Don't throw your toys out of the pram when you cannot think of rebuttals. Do you really want to reduce yourself to Barefoot's level?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The presence of a negative word, "not", in a claim doesn't make it either a negative or positive claim.
This is like saying "the presence of a head on a side of a coin doesn't make it either a head or a tail".

Of course it does. A side of a coin with a head on it becomes heads. Likewise, pleading guilty (positive) or not-guilty (negative) results in either a positive or negative plea.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
If one says "the lights in room 3 are off", that's a positive claim.
If one says "the lights in room 3 are NOT on", that is the exact same assertion that a set of facts is true, and it is a positive claim.
A light is either on or off; it cannot be both which your logic implies.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The positive or negative nature of a claim relies only on the context of what set of facts is being asserted in the claim itself, not on a separate claim that is made.
Regarding the lights in room 3:
Positive claim: The lights in room 3 are on.
Negative claim: The lights in room 3 are off.
It makes absolutely no difference if you say:
Negative claim: The lights in room 3 are NOT on.
The same claim is positive or negative depending on what set of facts it is relating to.
Of course it makes no difference as off and not on still mean the same thing - that the lights are off - which in turn is a negative claim. The point is, however, that if we apply your logic to any case - be it foot size, atheism, court cases, light switches - positive and negative are to be mixed into one.

That is what you are doing with atheism. That is what we must therefore do to everything.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
A positive claim can be a negative claim, and vice versa.
It's only a semantic distinction.
Then a switched-on light is also switched-off.

A heads side of a coin is also tails.

Innocence is also guilt.

Etc, etc.
SupaAFC

Bathgate, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? You are an idiot.
Do you really want to become Barefoot?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Two claims being positive does not make them the same.
But that is what you are trying to do with theism and atheism.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Making the positive claim "not guilty"
This still does not make sense.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
is to positively claim a set of facts being true that is counter to the positive claim of "guilty".
That is the alibi. You are saying that the pleas are both positive.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are trying to say that claiming innocence is the same as claiming guilt, since both are positive claims.(Notice, there is no "not" in claiming "innocence")
That is what your logic is saying. Innocence means without guilt, as as a result, there is a negation of guilt. It is a negative term contrary to guilt.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
But its a positive claim for the truth of the same set of facts as the claim of "not guilty".
What you do not seem to understand is that there are no "facts" for innocence; if someone is innocent of a crime, then the evidence of wrongdoing simply does not exist or can be explained by alternative factors - the alibis.

That is why innocence, like atheism, is a negative position. That is why they cannot be positive.
Babylon

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sE9_gYhACiA

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams¬ówho had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"¬ó Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

v=sE9_gYhACiA
"separation of church and state"

How about state separation from no belief?

¬Ė 7 states that don't allow atheists to hold public office.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/184232/these-...
Babylon

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>"Theist", that is what we are not thinking of? Is that what you are saying?

In part, you are correct ... we are free of theism and generally never think of it, unless we are here. Would you castigate us for not paying obeisance to the little blue god. He is on the list, along with the god with too many arms. You wish us to see them as real and become theist, don't you?

No problem, just prove they are true and we will believe, and since all the gods have the same amount of evidence showing them to be real(none), you may have a difficult job ahead of you, but even though you can prove them to be true, we still may not bow to them, or any other god for that matter.

But now, a lesson ... An atheist is simply not a theist. That is what the word means. Not a theist, it means that I follow no religious dogma, nor do I see proof of any gods existence. A theist would be one who is a member of a particular sect of religious worship (think whirling dervish) or one who worships any god or gods.

I, the atheist am simply, one without theism, and you can't make me worship any Pagan god, so don't even try.
"Atheism is the absence of all thought.
Note: the "A" then the word "the" followed by the word "is" and then ending with a single letter "m" much like it started with a single letter.
Now this proves the absent of all intelligent thought. "

Reason Personified:
"you are correct ... we are free of theism and generally never think of it, "

Wow!

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Mar 4, 2013
 
You celebrate bigotry that is specifically against the constitution?
Babylon wrote:
<quoted text>
"separation of church and state"
How about state separation from no belief?
¬Ė 7 states that don't allow atheists to hold public office.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/184232/these-...
Babylon

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Mar 4, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>I responded to that same challenge from NightSerf.

I named Hitchens, Dawkins, and Sam Harris.

I illustrated how they will on one occassion say it is "lack of belief". On another, they will say "there is no god".

They are liars, in other words.

Regardless of what today's writers and speaker say, "atheism" remains a belief that no god exists. So you have no point anyhow.

I didn't invent the term. If you don't like what "atheism" means, then don't call yourself an atheist.

It's very simple.
Why is it that atheist want to use the word atheist and the definition of agnostic?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••