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.

SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#122 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Off" is not negative.
"On" is not positive.
"Down" is not negative.
"Up" is not positive.
"Dark" is not negative.
"Light" is not positive.
They are opposites - that is the point. They cannot be the same which you consistently try to do.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And it doesn't matter anyway.
Of course it matters otherwise words lose their meaning.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Expression of a negative word in a claim tells you nothing about whether it is a positive claim.
So if I say that there are no biscuits in the jar, does that mean that there actually are biscuits in the jar?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth of the same set of facts can be claimed with negative language or positive language, and both can be a positive claim, as both are claiming THE SAME SET OF FACTS.
We do not even know if facts are the basis of the claims. We are speaking merely about the claims themselves.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't be this dumb. I think you are just needling me.
So forget it.
You are the one arguing that the contexts of words, and thus their meaning, do not matter.
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#123 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Given a resolution, then, there can only be an affirmative side. No negative arguments, because they do not exist. Man, I guess it's best to take the affirmative, huh?
"Negative" arguments are constructed through positive arguments. The difference is in the interpretation of the facts.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a moron.
You are the one who laughed off double negatives.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does the author instruct on how to refute negative arguments when they don't exist?
Because people tend to use their own terminologies. I notice you did not post his definition of what a "negative argument" actually is.

Google "negative argument" and the first thing that comes up is "argument from ignorance". That in itself is telling.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, your announcement that "negative arguments do not exist" hasn't gotten around.
Hilarious.
Seems to be synonymous with arguments from ignorance. Doesn't exactly look good.

I also see that you did not bother answering my question. I shall try again:

Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It also matters none at all if one uses the word "no", "not", or "off" in the statement.
It is totally irrelevant."

I wrote:

"Then if Larry tells his wife that he has turned the lights off, does that mean the lights are actually off or has he switched them on?"

Well?
SupaAFC

Kilmarnock, UK

#124 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Theists accept the burden.
Atheists attempt to shirk it by redefining atheism as a lack of belief.
The burden is the same on both.
You are the coward, Liverspot.
Then all negative positions must be proven. You must prove that you are "not" a criminal based purely on "negative" arguments.

That means you cannot use positive claims, at all.

No "I could not have done it as I was in another state at the time" (positive claim);

No "The boot print on the body is too large to be mine - I have size 16 feet" (positive claim);

No "The witness description of the killer is that he had blonde hair - I have brown" (positive claim).

You must explain to the world how negative positions can be validated based on whatever negative evidence constitutes as. Good luck.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#125 Mar 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm... I thought that Babylon was lampooning some people for using etiology as the sole rationale for deciding what words mean by taking that approach to a ridiculous extreme. Was I wrong?
Maybe Babylon will enlighten us.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#126 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand the distinction between proof and evidence?
Sure, we've got no evidence, therefore no proof of any gods. I mean if you've got the evidence, we won't mind at all, if you choose to show it. Should you decide to, know that you will be the first. It could return you to a veritible rerun of your former glory days.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#127 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
... you cannot logically call my beliefs "fairy tales" when you cannot use the scientific method to disprove that God exists....
Nonsense. There is no more evidence to confirm the existence of an Abrahamic god(s) than for some of Gimm's fairy tales. That's no excuse for things like 'Jesus/Mohammed was sent by God/Allah', or that 'God created heaven and Earth'.

Religion = superstition.
Religion is divisive too. One doesn't 'lose faith' so much as free one's mind of superstition.

Theology = mythology

I certainly find it reasonable to liken religious myths to fairy tales.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#128 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. The root of "atheist" is not "theist".
It is "theos", from the greek.
"Atheist" comes from "atheos", which means to deny the existence of gods.
An atheist believes that no god exists. His position is one of "belief", not fact, as his conclusion extends beyond what can be demonstrated.
"Atheism" is a belief in the same way "theism" is a belief.
Well, maybe the it is the "atheos" forum, which is needing your expertise, here we all seem to know exactly who we are, and don't feel the need for you to further define us. How on earth did you get so lost?

Atheism is the lack of theism.

Since: Mar 11

Scottsburg, IN

#129 Mar 5, 2013
All of my beliefs are based on observable data not imagination so your rant is childish.

Again my opinion on god is I am not going to believe until there is demonstrable proof for him, until we have that we certainly can't legislate his so called rules that enforce bigotry and intolerance.

We shall instead legislate based on justice and fairness for the safety and well being of society NOT based on appeasing religious people's imaginary friend. The wall of separation between church and state must be place for the good of all.
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor do you have the right to legislate your own personal beliefs (which you cannot prove via the scientific method of which you are so very proud) upon others. I have no problem with you thinking or believing the way you do. Go on wit yo bad self! However, you cannot logically call my beliefs "fairy tales" when you cannot use the scientific method to disprove that God exists. That is simply your opinion of which you are entitled. As am I. As are we all. So, by all means, let every man worship in the manner of his choosing. Allow him to explore and understand the world around him in his own way. What difference does it make to you? As long as his beliefs aren't illegal, immoral, or cause harm to his fellow man, I fail to see why you should even put your two cents in at all. Live and let live.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#130 Mar 5, 2013
Proof of Evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name them?
http://www.godchecker.com/

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#131 Mar 5, 2013
Proof of Evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you name them?
Start reading: http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_big_list_...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#132 Mar 5, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
"Off" is not negative.
"On" is not positive.
"Down" is not negative.
"Up" is not positive.
"Dark" is not negative.
"Light" is not positive.
And it doesn't matter anyway. Expression of a negative word in a claim tells you nothing about whether it is a positive claim.
The truth of the same set of facts can be claimed with negative language or positive language, and both can be a positive claim, as both are claiming THE SAME SET OF FACTS.
You can't be this dumb. I think you are just needling me.
So forget it.
"Not," "no," "non," and "none" are negative.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#133 Mar 5, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Nonsense. There is no more evidence to confirm the existence of an Abrahamic god(s) than for some of Gimm's fairy tales. That's no excuse for things like 'Jesus/Mohammed was sent by God/Allah', or that 'God created heaven and Earth'.

Religion = superstition.
Religion is divisive too. One doesn't 'lose faith' so much as free one's mind of superstition.

Theology = mythology

I certainly find it reasonable to liken religious myths to fairy tales.
Yet you cannot disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. Which is my only point. You are entitled to your own opinion on the matter.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#134 Mar 5, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>All of my beliefs are based on observable data not imagination so your rant is childish.

Again my opinion on god is I am not going to believe until there is demonstrable proof for him, until we have that we certainly can't legislate his so called rules that enforce bigotry and intolerance.

We shall instead legislate based on justice and fairness for the safety and well being of society NOT based on appeasing religious people's imaginary friend. The wall of separation between church and state must be place for the good of all.
Yet the scientific method cannot disprove the existence of God. Therefore your opinions on the matter are no more or less childish than my own. They are simply your opinions. Condemning mine doesn't make yours true.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#135 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you cannot disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. Which is my only point. You are entitled to your own opinion on the matter.
And that is the point: it is a matter of *opinion* and not of fact. Factual things are established by evidence. Opinions are personal.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#137 Mar 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>And that is the point: it is a matter of *opinion* and not of fact. Factual things are established by evidence. Opinions are personal.
So you admit that your opinion isn't factual? Especially seeing as how it cannot be proven using the scientific method?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#138 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet the scientific method cannot disprove the existence of God. Therefore your opinions on the matter are no more or less childish than my own. They are simply your opinions. Condemning mine doesn't make yours true.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

“the end-times is now”

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#139 Mar 5, 2013
Just Think wrote:
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.
especially for those who are not looking

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#140 Mar 5, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.
Bleh. Back to my point. The scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. It stands to reason, then, that your continual damnation of all things theist is as idiotic as it is illogical. You're simply defending your opinion. Which is fine. We are all entitled to one. Having an opinion on something doesn't necessarily make it true, however. Especially seeing as how you cannot, yet again, use the scientific method to disprove that which you don't believe in. Again, do what you do. Quite frankly, the zeal with which you go about your assault on anything and everything that just so happens to contradict your own personal convictions makes you more like the religious fundies that you so openly hate. Not less like them. I see no enlightenment in that.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#141 Mar 5, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
Hitchens: "I don't have to prove asantaclausism, I don't have to prove awitchism. It's just--I have to say I think that those who do believe in these things have never been able to make a plausible or intelligible case for doing so. That's not agnosticism because it seems to me that if you don't think that there is any evidence, you're wrong to take refuge in saying that you're neutral. You ought to have the courage to answer the question that one is regularly asked : "Are you and atheist or not?" "Yes,", I will say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AHIIjfxr4o0XX
So Hitchens simply believes that there is no plausible or intelligible case for belief in God or other deities. Dawkins likewise believes that no credible evidence for God exists, putting him in the same position. But he has stated in interviews and debates that, while he finds God's existence massively improbable, as a scientist, he can't rule it out entirely. Thus he is both agnostic and atheist.
Sam Harris:“The faith of religion is belief on insufficient evidence.”
For all three men, the crux of the matter is evidence or, rather, the lack of it.
What really places them together, though, is that they agree that religion does too much harm to be tolerated or ignored, and while I can see their point in many respects, here is where I part company with them. I think that working to remove religion from our society by trying to make people feel foolish for believing it is at least as harmful because of the fissures in society that it creates along with barriers to friendship and respect between individual people. I don't think either point of view should so dominate society that the other is comprised of despised outcasts.
Up until recent times, that has been the case. It still is to a lesser extent. But the public focus on the issue is bound to change that. Such focus has raised the stature of other oppressed groups to near parity in the past, and there's no reason to think that the same won't happen with atheists as well. Recent polls show, for instance, that atheists are now acceptable as political candidates to more than 50% of the general population for the first time in American history, and, over the past century, many laws that have no basis outside of religion have been overturned or removed from the books.
I see no use in contributing to the animosity between atheists and believers. We see so much of that in this forum, and I can't help but believe that the same sentiments run through society as a whole even if they are rarely expressed with such candor or as much venom as they are here. I'm a bit puzzled about that--why do so many make the issue so personal that they allow petty squabbles to so dominate our discussions that real ideas have to take a back seat to the trading of insults?
The real questions that emerge from this rambling, then, are: How can atheists and believers form a balanced society that works reasonably well for everyone? What arrangements will allow us to relax and enjoy each other as people in spite of our differences. What can we do to make peace with each other?
The first step is to want that. I do. Am I alone?
One question - IF the Islamic martyrs had a nuclear bomb, and used it on infidels, what would be your position then?

Do you consider the Mullah ruled Iran as potentially dangerous as North Korea in nuclear ambitions? Both are extremist governments.

I predict the Internet will eventually be the death rattle of organized religions.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#143 Mar 5, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
especially for those who are not looking
I looked for a very long time. Never found anything.

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
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 33 min IB DaMann 5,722
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr IB DaMann 94
bigger fish to fry (Jul '11) 3 hr Suspicious Packag... 2
What are the best arguments against religion? 3 hr Richardfs 8
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr Brian_G 23,592
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 13 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 14 hr Mintz4004 21,889
More from around the web