Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

[BeRational]

https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

The article claims that atheists believe there is no god.

That is wrong for a start!

[Shaker]

It was at that very point that I thought: uh oh ...

[ProfessorDavey]

https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

Don't really need to get beyond the following:

'But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational'

This is based on an assumption that atheism is 'a belief' - it isn't, it is exactly the opposite, it is 'a lack of a belief'.

We all lack belief is a huge number of things - indeed most theists lack belief in most gods - there is no onus to provide evidence to support a lack of a belief - if there were we'd be mired in providing evidence for thousands/millions of things we don't believe in. Indeed there is, in theory, an infinite number of things that could be purported and therefore an infinite number of things that we don't believe in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The article claims that atheists believe there is no god.

That is wrong for a start!

well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't really need to get beyond the following:

'But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational'

This is based on an assumption that atheism is 'a belief' - it isn't, it is exactly the opposite, it is 'a lack of a belief'.

Do you think you could be found though to be completely lacking in belief.......of anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't really need to get beyond the following:

'But what of the New Atheists’ atheism – their belief that there is no god or other divine reality? According to evidentialism, that belief (with whatever degree of confidence it is held) also requires evidence in order to be rational'

This is based on an assumption that atheism is 'a belief' - it isn't, it is exactly the opposite, it is 'a lack of a belief'.

What did you make of his section on exactly the objections you are making?

[Shaker]

well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.

Sounds like question-begging to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

How on earth does something like that get published in a (presumably) reputable magazine?

Is there no peer review or editorial oversight to weed out articles so full of mistakes?

Odd.

[BeRational]

well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.

Not sure what you mean, but atheism does not mean that atheists believe that there is no god.

Do you know that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds like question-begging to me.

OK. If be rational states that new atheism doesn't say that God doesn't exist then it is accepting that God may exist. So we are left with the word atheism to be interpreted in the light of God possibly existing. In other words an atheist is without a God who might exist.

I'm afraid it is perfectly reasonable to ask why God maybe outside an atheist or an atheist outside or without God.

[BeRational]

OK. If be rational states that new atheism doesn't say that God doesn't exist then it is accepting that God may exist. So we are left with the word atheism to be interpreted in the light of God possibly existing. In other words an atheist is without a God who might exist.

I'm afraid it is perfectly reasonable to ask why God maybe outside an atheist or an atheist outside or without God.

God may exist that is true.

I do not believe it does, so I am an atheist.

I could be wrong though, it's just that the evidence is not enough to convince me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure what you mean, but atheism does not mean that atheists believe that there is no god.

Do you know that?

Absolutely.

Do you understand that because of it atheist are not therefore immune to further questioning?

[BeRational]

Absolutely.

Do you understand that because of it atheist are not therefore immune to further questioning?

About what?

I do not believe if Big Foot, or the Loch Ness monster or .....

What further questions are there?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How on earth does something like that get published

Something like what?

[ProfessorDavey]

What did you make of his section on exactly the objections you are making?

Complete non-sense.

First there is a discussion of 'standard' and 'non standard' definitions of atheist - without any kind of clarity. However to me (and I suspect most self defining atheists here) the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.

He goes further to indicate his lack of understanding, with a confusion with agnosticism - again many (if not most) atheists here are perfectly happy to be described as agnostic atheists - the agnostic part being that we do know 'know' that god or gods exist or don't exist - the atheist part being that we do not 'believe' they do. Perfectly compatible.

Then he makes the nonsense claim (purporting to use the 'non standard' definition of atheism) that there are the following attitudes toward proposition P:

Believing P
Believing non-P
Suspending judgment about P

Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)

There is no evidential requirement for Not believing P - the onus of evidential requirement rest on those 'believing P'.

Imagine P is that invisible pink unicorns exist on the moon, do you really think there is any onus on someone 'not believing P' to provide any evidence to that effect - of course not, not least because you cannot prove the non-existence of something.

[Enki]

well that's interesting since it suggests that atheism is without the God that there might be.
We are entitled to ask there where outside themselves God is and why they are keeping him outside or He is keeping them outside.

As I don't exclude the idea of an objective god but see no evidence to substantiate the existence of one, I don't have any belief in any god. This article therefore doesn't seem to apply to me at all, as others have already said.

Your questions here make very little sense to me. As I don't have any belief in a god, what exactly is the point in asking me where the god that I don't believe in, is, or asking if I am keeping a god that I don't believe in outside?  Only if I see solid evidence that this god exists, yet still remain unbelieving, would these questions make any sort of sense, surely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Complete non-sense.

First there is a discussion of 'standard' and 'non standard' definitions of atheist - without any kind of clarity. However to me (and I suspect most self defining atheists here) the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.

He goes further to indicate his lack of understanding, with a confusion with agnosticism - again many (if not most) atheists here are perfectly happy to be described as agnostic atheists - the agnostic part being that we do know 'know' that god or gods exist or don't exist - the atheist part being that we do not 'believe' they do. Perfectly compatible.

Then he makes the nonsense claim (purporting to use the 'non standard' definition of atheism) that there are the following attitudes toward proposition P:

Believing P
Believing non-P
Suspending judgment about P

Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)

There is no evidential requirement for Not believing P - the onus of evidential requirement rest on those 'believing P'.

Imagine P is that invisible pink unicorns exist on the moon, do you really think there is any onus on someone 'not believing P' to provide any evidence to that effect - of course not, not least because you cannot prove the non-existence of something.

Quite. Simpler yet, just use "leprechauns" for "God", "a-leprechaunist" for "atheist" etc throughout the article and the author's mistakes are obvious. 

[ProfessorDavey]

As I don't exclude the idea of an objective god but see no evidence to substantiate the existence of one, I don't have any belief in any god. This article therefore doesn't seem to apply to me at all, as others have already said.

Indeed.

And there is further misconception in the rather long section entitled:

'Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence' - which massively missed the point. I (and I suspect others) are perfectly aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hence we are happy to describe ourselves as both atheist (we don't believe that god or gods exist) and agnostic (that we don't know whether god or gods exist). The lack of evidence for the existence of god doesn't mean that god doesn't exist - however it supports a rational view that we do not believe in the existence of god. Of course were credible evidence to be forthcoming atheists would change their position as atheism isn't a belief nor a position of faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Complete non-sense.

First there is a discussion of 'standard' and 'non standard' definitions of atheist - without any kind of clarity. However to me (and I suspect most self defining atheists here) the definition of atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods.

He goes further to indicate his lack of understanding, with a confusion with agnosticism - again many (if not most) atheists here are perfectly happy to be described as agnostic atheists - the agnostic part being that we do know 'know' that god or gods exist or don't exist - the atheist part being that we do not 'believe' they do. Perfectly compatible.

Then he makes the nonsense claim (purporting to use the 'non standard' definition of atheism) that there are the following attitudes toward proposition P:

Believing P
Believing non-P
Suspending judgment about P

Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)

There is no evidential requirement for Not believing P - the onus of evidential requirement rest on those 'believing P'.

Imagine P is that invisible pink unicorns exist on the moon, do you really think there is any onus on someone 'not believing P' to provide any evidence to that effect - of course not, not least because you cannot prove the non-existence of something.

Unfortunately you start with hyperbole.
I'm not sure I agree with this statement of yours though.,
''Non of these apply to atheism - which is
Not believing P (completely different to believing non-P)''

since I've come across those who have stated their believing non-P convictions .....sound Ippy out and see what he thinks of the position you put him in.

After all believing non-P is undoubtably an atheist position which makes your statement merely ''claiming the Brand name''.

I will not wax on about objections to believing non-P.

Not believing P brings it's own issues though since agnosticism about God throws up a God who could be and therefore questions like why a ''could be'' God is without (outside of) the atheist and, if that ''could be'' God exists, why the atheist is outside of(without) that God.

As a non believer of P that I'm afraid is the spectre at your feast.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Quite. Simpler yet, just use "leprechauns" for "God", "a-leprechaunist" for "atheist" etc throughout the article and the author's mistakes are obvious.

NURSE!!!!! HE'S AT THE LEPRECHAUNS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I don't exclude the idea of an objective god but see no evidence to substantiate the existence of one, I don't have any belief in any god. This article therefore doesn't seem to apply to me at all, as others have already said.

Your questions here make very little sense to me. As I don't have any belief in a god, what exactly is the point in asking me where the god that I don't believe in, is, or asking if I am keeping a god that I don't believe in outside?  Only if I see solid evidence that this god exists, yet still remain unbelieving, would these questions make any sort of sense, surely.

So what you are saying is that you have no belief in God but believe that he could exist?

[BeRational]

So what you are saying is that you have no belief in God but believe that he could exist?

I would say I do not believe in a god, like I do not believe in lots of things.

I do NOT though, claim that I believe those things do NOT exist. I have no idea if they exist, I only know that at this moment I do not believe they do.

Why is atheism so difficult to understand.

You do not I assume believe in Leprechauns?

Do you believe they do NOT exist as well?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not believing P brings it's own issues though since agnosticism about God throws up a God who could be and therefore questions like why a ''could be'' God is without (outside of) the atheist and, if that ''could be'' God exists, why the atheist is outside of(without) that God.

As a non believer of P that I'm afraid is the spectre at your feast.

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Do I 'know' that god or gods don't exist - nope, and I've never claimed I do - indeed it would be intellectually dishonest so to do as it would require full and complete knowledge of everything that exists, may have existed or might exist in the future everywhere in the universe. Do you know what, I'm not that arrogant. Hence I am agnostic.

Do I believe that god or gods exist - nope, I don't believe they exist - reason being that I have never seen any evidence for their existence sufficient to support a belief in their existence.

I therefore choose to live my life on the basis that god or gods don't exist until or unless someone were to provide evidence sufficient for my to change that view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are consuming atheism with agnosticism.

I will eat anything.