Superior Evidence for Unbelief - Atheists Search - Where Will it End ?

[TallRed]

^^^^  Now you mention it, seems to me the only way to be one o' them agnostics straddling the fence is if they got no balls. 

I?ve hashed this to death on another forum, but I would like to add this: agnosticism is about knowledge while atheism is about belief. I classify myself as an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge about gods and thus have no belief. I see no sliding scale of belief as many do. At one end is no belief. The other is full-on belief. There?s no ?sorta-kinda? belief. If there is, I?ve never heard of it.

[Mr. Blackwell]

^^^^  You just declared yourself non theist, which for the purposes of this thread does not seem like walking down the middle.

Maybe there is a god. Maybe there isn't. Either way, I don't know but I am still willing to entertain the notion. As such, I do not live my life as if there is such a thing.

[none]

well first he was a deist believing there was a god and now he doesn't believe there is a god and says I don't know
it is a lack of belief
do you believe in god? no, I don't know for certain
not a theist certainly possible a deist

[Inertialmass]

... agnosticism is about knowledge while atheism is about belief. I classify myself as an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge about gods and thus have no belief. I see no sliding scale of belief as many do. At one end is no belief. The other is full-on belief. There?s no ?sorta-kinda? belief. If there is, I?ve never heard of it.

Hmmm... gonna hafta think on it.  Nicely parsed and stated. 

My first reaction is that you and I may actually pay attention to dictionary definitions and you and I may be clear in our own thinking insofar as presenting useful self-identifications.  On the other hand I know some cool New Age-ish folks, and then there's that Higher Power thingy, which I can conceive slithering around occupying somewhat a middle ground between the extremes.

Blackwell, I suspect that most atheists truly do believe that their nonbelief is always provisional, like the rejection or acceptance of a scientific theory, pending the quality, quantity and replicability of evidence.

   

[bad actor]

It will be interesting to learn more about this "tic tac UFO" that the Pentagon has come out and said is real.

If it's real, we are not the most advanced life in the universe.

Believers will have to cry "hoax!" or claim that god or Jesus is driving that space vessel or something.

Because to admit otherwise means that this whole "The Earth is gods creation for his special little snowflakes" really was just a story in a book...like atheists have suspected all along.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/navy-pilot-recalls-encounter-ufo-unlike/story?id=51856514

I thought I started a new thread and put this in it... Not sure how it ended up here.

Must have had a brain fart or something?

[Inertialmass]

^^^^  Ha, ha.  I thought it blended pretty well.  Inverted burden of proof and all.

[bad actor]

^^^^  Ha, ha.  I thought it blended pretty well.  Inverted burden of proof and all.

We have an investigative journalist here in Vegas named George Knapp and he does a lot of things on UFO's. I've never payed much attention to UFO claims because I haven't seen anything all that convincing to me.

This seems a little more convincing because the military has acknowledged that it was definitely something and whatever it was was way beyond anything on this planet.

I guess one of the original pilots who saw it has come out and said crap like "we need to prepare for a 'War of the Worlds' " scenario.

Effing humans...

They probably are waiting for us to evolve to the point where they can safely land and say "Hi!"....lol

[eyeshaveit]

I Shave It:   I shaved just this morning!

Skeptic:       Show us yer clean-shaven face on Skype.

I Shave It:   Show me your proof that I did not shave!!!

Turtleneck:   I believe you didn't shaved this morning!

Cardigan:     Do you have any evidence that my beard caught on fire.

Turtleneck:   Atheists don't need any stinkin' evidence, Smokey.

[eyeshaveit]

I don't think I've ever seen a discussion where one atheist is trying to argue that their lack of belief in your god is better or more accurate than another atheists lack of belief.

This isn't about who bakes the best blueberry pie,
We are looking for Blue Ribbon theory evidence here.

[eyeshaveit]

Dear Non-Theist,

Why do you think that the evidence for your unbelief is closer to the TRUTH than that of other unbelievers? Please tell us in 2,000 words or less.

Why do you think that I (or any other non theist) think that the evidence for our unbelief, in your god, is closer to the TRUTH than that of anyone else?

Else everybody wins a Blue Ribbon for their pie, eh ?

[eyeshaveit]

I see no sliding scale of belief as many do. At one end is no belief. The other is full-on belief. There?s no ?sorta-kinda? belief.

True; no "sorta-kinda" fence to sit on,
But there is a sliding scale of faith: from weak to strong;
Anyway, the point is that we all believe in the design of the Universe and life therein.

[TallRed]

I see no sliding scale of belief as many do. At one end is no belief. The other is full-on belief. There?s no ?sorta-kinda? belief.

True; no "sorta-kinda" fence to sit on,
But there is a sliding scale of faith: from weak to strong;
Anyway, the point is that we all believe in the design of the Universe and life therein.

Who is ?we all??

[Inertialmass]

Who is ?we all??

Plural pluperfect tense of "Eyeshaveit."

[eyeshaveit]

I see no sliding scale of belief as many do. At one end is no belief. The other is full-on belief. There?s no ?sorta-kinda? belief.

True; no "sorta-kinda" fence to sit on,
But there is a sliding scale of faith: from weak to strong;
Anyway, the point is that we all believe in the design of the Universe and life therein.

Who is ?we all??

Consider it synonymous with "you all".

[Mr. Blackwell]

Dear Non-Theist,

Why do you think that the evidence for your unbelief is closer to the TRUTH than that of other unbelievers? Please tell us in 2,000 words or less.

Why do you think that I (or any other non theist) think that the evidence for our unbelief, in your god, is closer to the TRUTH than that of anyone else?

Else everybody wins a Blue Ribbon for their pie, eh ?

I don't understand your reply.

[bad actor]

I Shave It:   I shaved just this morning!

Skeptic:       Show us yer clean-shaven face on Skype.

I Shave It:   Show me your proof that I did not shave!!!

Turtleneck:   I believe you didn't shaved this morning!

Cardigan:     Do you have any evidence that my beard caught on fire.

Turtleneck:   Atheists don't need any stinkin' evidence, Smokey.

I Shave It: I had a very long beard and a razor floated in the room and started shaving me all by itself!


Afloatingrazorist: That's a pretty fantastical claim, can you demonstrate it true?


I Shave It: < Gets on Skype>   See my clean shaven face!


Afloatingrazorist: Well, my face is clean shaven too. A clean shaven face doesn't doesn't prove anything.


I Shave It: The floating razor shaved your face and you know it, you just don't want to admit it.


Afloatingrazorist: WTF?

[eyeshaveit]

Dear Non-Theist,

Why do you think that the evidence for your unbelief is closer to the TRUTH than that of other unbelievers? Please tell us in 2,000 words or less.

Why do you think that I (or any other non theist) think that the evidence for our unbelief, in your god, is closer to the TRUTH than that of anyone else?

Else everybody wins a Blue Ribbon for their pie, eh ?

I don't understand your reply.

Either an unbeliever has 'the truth' or they don't;
If one does have 'the truth' is their evidence better,
Than that of other unbelievers or is it all just the same ?

[Meat]

I Shave It makes me chuckle. I think I coined that term. 

[kevin]

[Mr. Blackwell]

Dear Non-Theist,

Why do you think that the evidence for your unbelief is closer to the TRUTH than that of other unbelievers? Please tell us in 2,000 words or less.

Why do you think that I (or any other non theist) think that the evidence for our unbelief, in your god, is closer to the TRUTH than that of anyone else?

Else everybody wins a Blue Ribbon for their pie, eh ?

I don't understand your reply.

Either an unbeliever has 'the truth' or they don't;
If one does have 'the truth' is their evidence better,
Than that of other unbelievers or is it all just the same ?

Either a believer has 'the truth' or they don't;
If one does have 'the truth' is their evidence better,
Than that of other believers or is it all just the same?


You are running in circles just as fast as you can but you will never catch your own tale.

[eyeshaveit]

You are running in circles just as fast as you can but you will never catch your own tale.

Can you prove it
Or are you are making my point:
That atheists don't need any evidence; just an  assertive riff here and there?

[eyeshaveit]

I Shave It makes me chuckle. I think I coined that term. 

It would be worth more if it were Virtually Uncirculated.

[Boots]

Dear Non-Theist,

Why do you think that the evidence for your unbelief is closer to the TRUTH than that of other unbelievers? Please tell us in 2,000 words or less.

You have (as is so very, very common) framed the question incorrectly.  Atheism is the rejection of a claim that has not met its burden of proof.

So you don't need any evidence for your belief (or lack of belief) ?

sorry, haven't checked this particular thread in a while, I'm replying to an old-ish reply.

Let me steal an analogy from Matt Dillahunty.

there's a big jar of jelly beans.  You don't know how many are in there.  I say to you "the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd."

What is your response?

what your response SHOULD be is "you have given me no evidence to back up your claim; therefore I reject it, and withhold judgement on whether there is odd or even "

This is not "No, I don't believe you; it must be even."  It is "you haven't met the burden of proof to support your claim."  THAT is atheism.  So, no, I don't need evidence to reject your claim that has no evidence.

Now, allow me to extrapolate on Mr. Dillahunty's analogy.

Claiming that, for example, a specific deity (such as the god of the Bible) exists is akin to claiming "There exists in that jar of jelly beans a jelly bean that is outside time & space; has an unknowable mind; created the universe; and with which I have a deep personal relationship.  Oh, and it will send you to hell if you don't believe in it."

Yeah, no.

[Boots]

I Shave It:   I shaved just this morning!

Skeptic:       Show us yer clean-shaven face on Skype.

I Shave It:   Show me your proof that I did not shave!!!

Turtleneck:   I believe you didn't shaved this morning!

Cardigan:     Do you have any evidence that my beard caught on fire.

Turtleneck:   Atheists don't need any stinkin' evidence, Smokey.

this actually demonstrates precisely my above post.  I Shave It made a claim.  Turtleneck rejected the claim, but went a step further and made the opposite claim.  The proper position is to REJECT ALL CLAIMS (the null position) until evidence is shown to support one or the other (or the other, or the other, depending).  the proper position is to WITHHOLD JUDGEMENT until the evidence is presented.

the proper position, sir, is atheism!   

[Teaspoon Shallow]

Cannot double +1.  Great posts Boots.

[kevin]

the proper position, sir, is atheism!   

unless it's wrong.

then it's improper whether it's the debate winner or not.

[TallRed]

the proper position, sir, is atheism!   

unless it's wrong.

then it's improper whether it's the debate winner or not.

Please explain how atheism can be wrong. I?m interested in how you perceive atheism.

[kevin]

atheism can be wrong in the same way that anything can be wrong, tallred:

it can be inconsistent with reality.

any time atheism is defended well or poorly and is wrong, it is an improper position.

or if you like, it can be a proper debate position and be wrong anyway.

[eyeshaveit]

Dear Non-Theist,

Why do you think that the evidence for your unbelief is closer to the TRUTH than that of other unbelievers? Please tell us in 2,000 words or less.

You have (as is so very, very common) framed the question incorrectly.  Atheism is the rejection of a claim that has not met its burden of proof.

So you don't need any evidence for your belief (or lack of belief) ?

sorry, haven't checked this particular thread in a while, I'm replying to an old-ish reply.

Let me steal an analogy from Matt Dillahunty.

there's a big jar of jelly beans.  You don't know how many are in there.  I say to you "the number of jelly beans in the jar is odd."

What is your response?

The possible responses include:
1 - I agree that the number is odd.
2 - Maybe the number is odd; maybe not.
3 - There is not an odd number of jelly beans.
4 - I don't care if the jelly beans are odd or even.
5 - Can you prove that the number of jelly beans is odd?
6 - You haven't proved to me that the number of jelly beans is odd.
7 - You haven't met the burden of proof to support your claim of an odd number.

Answers #1 through #4 are faith beliefs,
Answers #5 and #6 are 'scientific' demands for evidence,
Answer #7 is a fictional device to cover a lack of real interest in the subject.

[TallRed]

atheism can be wrong in the same way that anything can be wrong, tallred:

it can be inconsistent with reality.

any time atheism is defended well or poorly and is wrong, it is an improper position.

or if you like, it can be a proper debate position and be wrong anyway.

Sorry, but I?m not following you. If atheism is a position statement, how can that be right or wrong?