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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#81 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
A light is either on or off; it cannot be both which your logic implies.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Then a switched-on light is also switched-off.
A heads side of a coin is also tails.
Innocence is also guilt.
Etc, etc.
You are hopeless.

According to your reasoning:

"The light is off" is a negative claim.

"The light is not off" is a positive claim.

That is absurd on its face, and you do not have the intellect to grasp the argument.

So long.
Babylon

United States

#82 Mar 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and it's important to have the wall of separation between church and state.
Why?

There is no wall in 90% of the world.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#83 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really want to become Barefoot?
<quoted text>
But that is what you are trying to do with theism and atheism.
<quoted text>
This still does not make sense.
<quoted text>
That is the alibi. You are saying that the pleas are both positive.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
There is no set of facts for innocence, you say???

Then you go on to describe that exact set of facts.

That's great.

You are hopeless.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#84 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>

That is the alibi. You are saying that the pleas are both positive.
No, that is not the alibi.

The facts proving innocence, or non-guilt, do not have to contain an alibi. People are found not guilty every day who have no alibi.

Do you even know what constitutes an alibi?

An alibi is one possible fact, but not necessarily.

You are hopeless. I'm done.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#85 Mar 4, 2013
Atheism has to do with not believing in a god. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge of a god. They are not mutually exclusive terms and this really shouldn't have to be explained to you idiots again.
Babylon wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that atheist want to use the word atheist and the definition of agnostic?
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#86 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hopeless.
According to your reasoning:
"The light is off" is a negative claim.
"The light is not off" is a positive claim.
That is absurd on its face, and you do not have the intellect to grasp the argument.
So long.
Have you heard of double negatives? Do you know what they create?

"Not off" is a good example of one.
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#87 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no set of facts for innocence, you say???
Innocence, ie not guilty, is the plea.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you go on to describe that exact set of facts.
That's great.
You are hopeless.
That is the alibi that in turn supports the plea.

Why are you struggling to understand this?
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#88 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not the alibi.
The facts proving innocence, or non-guilt, do not have to contain an alibi.
Unless there is evidence to be explained that may indicate guilt. Again, refer to the Pistorius case.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
People are found not guilty every day who have no alibi.
Mainly due to a lack of evidence from the prosecution.

By your reasoning, lack of evidence is still a positive claim.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you even know what constitutes an alibi?
Yes. Do you know what constitutes a negative?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
An alibi is one possible fact, but not necessarily.
Because...
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hopeless. I'm done.
You are the one claiming that heads and tails are the same.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#89 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you heard of double negatives? Do you know what they create?
"Not off" is a good example of one.
Hilarious! "Double-negatives"

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#90 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless there is evidence to be explained that may indicate guilt. Again, refer to the Pistorius case.
<quoted text>
Mainly due to a lack of evidence from the prosecution.
By your reasoning, lack of evidence is still a positive claim.
<quoted text>
Yes. Do you know what constitutes a negative?
<quoted text>
Because...
<quoted text>
You are the one claiming that heads and tails are the same.
Hilarious!
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#91 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious! "Double-negatives"
A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same sentence. Multiple negation is the more general term referring to the occurrence of more than one negative in a clause.
In most logics and some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives intensify each other are said to have negative concord. Portuguese, French, Persian, and Spanish are examples of negative-concord languages, while Latin and German do not have negative concord. Standard English lacks negative concord, but it was normal in Old English and Middle English, and some modern dialects do have it (e.g. African American Vernacular English and Cockney), although its usage in English is often stigmatized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative

You have never heard of double negatives?
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#92 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious!
"Gee, that double-sided-both-heads-and-ta ils coin looks shiny".

Hilarious indeed.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#93 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless there is evidence to be explained that may indicate guilt. Again, refer to the Pistorius case.
<quoted text>
Mainly due to a lack of evidence from the prosecution.
By your reasoning, lack of evidence is still a positive claim.
<quoted text>
Yes. Do you know what constitutes a negative?
<quoted text>
Because...
<quoted text>
You are the one claiming that heads and tails are the same.
Try one more time to grasp this.

A Positive Argument is an argument for your particular position.

A Negative Argument is an argument against an opposing position.

So, if the opposing position is that "the sky is not blue", the negative argument is "the sky is blue".

If the opposing statement is "the sky is blue", then the opposing negative statement is "the sky is not blue".

Being a positive or negative assertion or argument has nothing to do with the internal wording of the opposing statement or your statement. It has to do with whether you are opposing a previous statement, or offering your own statement.

Finally, to the point.

"Atheism is the belief that no god exists."

This is a positive assertion, because it states the position of the person holding the position.

It could become a negative assertion in discussion.

As a definition, it is a positive assertion. It presents the position of the person holding it as "no god exists", which is a positive claim to a set of facts that make the statement true.

If you can't understand this as I have spoon-fed it to you, you will never understand it.





Since: May 10

Location hidden

#94 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
A double negative occurs when two forms of negation are used in the same sentence. Multiple negation is the more general term referring to the occurrence of more than one negative in a clause.
In most logics and some languages, double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative sense; in other languages, doubled negatives intensify the negation. Languages where multiple negatives intensify each other are said to have negative concord. Portuguese, French, Persian, and Spanish are examples of negative-concord languages, while Latin and German do not have negative concord. Standard English lacks negative concord, but it was normal in Old English and Middle English, and some modern dialects do have it (e.g. African American Vernacular English and Cockney), although its usage in English is often stigmatized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative
You have never heard of double negatives?
Wonderful.

And that has nothing to do with whether an assertion or argument is a positive or negative one.

Not even if you have 50 negatives. Or 51.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#95 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How can a claim be the absence of a claim?
How would someone know if they agree with it?
...ugggghhhh
Because it's not a claim, and atheists disagree all the time on matters, especially existential matters. An atheist Buddhist thinks there is reincarnation, and atheist agnostic will likely think that's crazy, I know, I think it's crazy. A gnostic atheist would think anyone who even leaves the possibility of a god existing open for debate is insane, they're a bit dishonest on that matter but hey, you're allowed to be delusional so they're allowed to be extreme.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#96 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
"Gee, that double-sided-both-heads-and-ta ils coin looks shiny".
Hilarious indeed.
There is no positive position on the heads or tails until someone makes a statement about it.

When they do, that is the positive assertion.

If another disagrees, that is a negative assertion.

It matters none at all which side is up, or which way the person calls it.

It also matters none at all if one uses the word "no", "not", or "off" in the statement.

It is totally irrelevant.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#97 Mar 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's not a claim, and atheists disagree all the time on matters, especially existential matters. An atheist Buddhist thinks there is reincarnation, and atheist agnostic will likely think that's crazy, I know, I think it's crazy. A gnostic atheist would think anyone who even leaves the possibility of a god existing open for debate is insane, they're a bit dishonest on that matter but hey, you're allowed to be delusional so they're allowed to be extreme.
Those are all claims.

The atheist claim is also a claim.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#98 Mar 4, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>

That is the alibi that in turn supports the plea.
No, it isn't. An alibi is not required.

A set of facts asserted to be true supports the "not guilty".

That is a positive claim.

The facts prove not guilty in thousands of cases where no alibi exists.

You don't understand what an alibi is.

al·i·bi
Noun
"A claim or piece of evidence that one was elsewhere when an act, typically a criminal one, is alleged to have taken place."

An alibi is good evidence of innocence, but not required and often not present. Defense relies on other facts. Sometimes they prove convincing, sometimes not.

Pick up a book.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#99 Mar 4, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Try one more time to grasp this.
A Positive Argument is an argument for your particular position.
A Negative Argument is an argument against an opposing position.
So, if the opposing position is that "the sky is not blue", the negative argument is "the sky is blue".
If the opposing statement is "the sky is blue", then the opposing negative statement is "the sky is not blue".
Being a positive or negative assertion or argument has nothing to do with the internal wording of the opposing statement or your statement. It has to do with whether you are opposing a previous statement, or offering your own statement.
Finally, to the point.
"Atheism is the belief that no god exists."
This is a positive assertion, because it states the position of the person holding the position.
It could become a negative assertion in discussion.
As a definition, it is a positive assertion. It presents the position of the person holding it as "no god exists", which is a positive claim to a set of facts that make the statement true.
If you can't understand this as I have spoon-fed it to you, you will never understand it.
Okay ... so you don't know English, good to know.
Babylon

United States

#100 Mar 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism has to do with not believing in a god. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge of a god. They are not mutually exclusive terms and this really shouldn't have to be explained to you idiots again.
There is a general consensus that:

A person who believes in a specific God is a Theist.

A person who actively denies the existence of God is an Atheist.

A person who feels that we have no method by which we can conclude whether a deity exists is an Agnostic.

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 Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr nanoanomaly 117
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 74,760
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 4,048
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 13 hr Subduction Zone 6,084
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Thu Subduction Zone 32,062
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed John 4,951
News Why do public atheists have to behave like such... Jun 21 Eagle 12 - 4
More from around the web