Poor Suzy

[Mr. Personality]

There is no Old and New Atheist group. Christians tend to think so because they have an Old and New testament.

Atheists don't decide to become an Atheist. They are educated people that eventually realize something.
Critical thinking, logic and reason are the key ingredients in the making of an Atheist.

However, one thing I'm not looking forward to is people saying they are an Atheist to look smart. Kind of like people now choosing to wear the uncomfortable thick rimmed glasses (Rivers Cuomo was way ahead of the times). Celebrities will come out claiming they are Atheists and then all hell will break loose! Haha, you like that pun?

This is the stupidest thing I've read on this board, and that's really saying something.
You don't need to look any further than this board (often yourself) to find extremist atheism or "New Atheism"
If you don't want to see people claiming to be Atheists to look "smart" you should probably stay in your house and not look in a mirror. It's everywhere.
I just wish people knew what "smart" is.

[Nebula]

I want to be a gnostic choclatarian (I think, therefore I eat Mars bars.)

To further hello's excellent post above, take a look at prayer. A religious person would say that their god answers all prayers, even when the answer is no. An atheist would say there is absolutely no evidence prayer works, in any way, shape or form. The religious person has nothing to fall back on but belief. The atheist can point to the complete lack of evidence available as reason to assume prayer does sweet bugger all.

Prayer could also be tested. I believe (snicker) it would fail.

[Mr. Personality]

Lack of evidence is not proof.

[hellomynameis]

Lack of evidence is not proof.

Indeed.

But a lack of evidence in A is a great reason to not believe A. To say otherwise is to advocate for the degree of open mindedness that allows one's brain to fall out.

[Mr. Personality]

No. It's a good reason to continue looking for proof.

[hellomynameis]

No. It's a good reason to continue looking for proof.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

And I find your 'No", to the statement, "Lack of evidence in A is a great reason to not believe in A" to be quite interesting.

I would say anything that lacks good evidence (that could have evidence in the first place) is deserving of scepticism first and foremost. And you'll find no argument from me regarding a constant need to continue to look for evidence, that's a very good thing.

[Mr. Personality]

Sceptical, yes. But a reason to not believe? I don't see that.
Lack of evidence is a great reason to reserve judgement (obviously not talking about a court setting here). Nothing more, nothing less.

[hellomynameis]

Sceptical, yes. But a reason to not believe? I don't see that.
Lack of evidence is a great reason to reserve judgement (obviously not talking about a court setting here). Nothing more, nothing less.

You'll have to explain to me how you'd agree that something that lacks evidence should have scepticism applied to it and judgment reserved yet be believed.

That seems like a bit of a contradiction.

[Mr. Personality]

I don't think it's a contradiction. You can be skeptical without passing judgement.
The longer something goes without being proven, the more skeptical I am, but it doesn't mean I've passed judgement on it if new evidence arises.

[Born_again]

..... but it doesn't mean I've passed judgement on it if new evidence arises.

Ahh .... the thinking Atheist's position all along, I see. I'm glad we have something in common, though I wouldn't have found it necessary to write "new" before "evidence".

[hellomynameis]

I don't think it's a contradiction. You can be skeptical without passing judgement.
The longer something goes without being proven, the more skeptical I am, but it doesn't mean I've passed judgement on it if new evidence arises.

It would seem that door swings both ways. From my point of view it is far more accurate/reasonable to withhold judgment or side with the null hypothesis than to pass a positive judgment on a subject that lacks evidence. I would call the later irrational.

Especially considering that we're not talking about, say, a young Einstein believing that his un-evidenced theory is true. We are talking about the active belief that some people hold where they know that there is a god who created the universe, its laws, a moral framework and intervenes in human affairs. To say the least for most.

[Mr. Personality]

..... but it doesn't mean I've passed judgement on it if new evidence arises.

Ahh .... the thinking Atheist's position all along, I see. I'm glad we have something in common, though I wouldn't have found it necessary to write "new" before "evidence".

Maybe I should have put "evidence that hasn't come to light yet.

I don't think it's a contradiction. You can be skeptical without passing judgement.
The longer something goes without being proven, the more skeptical I am, but it doesn't mean I've passed judgement on it if new evidence arises.

It would seem that door swings both ways. From my point of view it is far more accurate/reasonable to withhold judgment or side with the null hypothesis than to pass a positive judgment on a subject that lacks evidence. I would call the later irrational.

Especially considering that we're not talking about, say, a young Einstein believing that his un-evidenced theory is true. We are talking about the active belief that some people hold where they know that there is a god who created the universe, its laws, a moral framework and intervenes in human affairs. To say the least for most.

For those people, there is enough evidence. It's merely a matter of what you determine to be "evidence". For example, you or I wouldn't call a sunrise "evidence of a God" but many would and it's good enough for them.
Personally, I would have to see evidence both ways. A lack of proof there's a God doesn't mean there's no God. Just like a lack of proof there's no God doesn't mean there is a God.

[hellomynameis]

For those people, there is enough evidence. It's merely a matter of what you determine to be "evidence". For example, you or I wouldn't call a sunrise "evidence of a God" but many would and it's good enough for them.
Personally, I would have to see evidence both ways. A lack of proof there's a God doesn't mean there's no God. Just like a lack of proof there's no God doesn't mean there is a God.

Two things.

- There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between your view point and mine. The idea that any "evidence" justifies a belief and that the "evidence" to belief path shouldn't be judged sounds completely ludicrous to me. Why is Leninism the best form of political theory? Chocolate cake. What does the Earth orbit the sun? Santa Claus. Proof of God? A sunrise. I'm sorry but virtually no one talks this kind of pablum during a political/philosophical/musical/moral/ethical/civics/parenting/health/economic/etcetera/etc discussion or debate.

- Trying to keep the discussion in some indistinguishable admixture via an appeal to solipsism isn't going to work with me either. We can simply agree to disagree if you want but the "You can't prove God doesn't exist," is no strong point in trying to defend faith. The burden of proof is with the claimant not the sceptic. And again, if we applied this mode of thinking to all things the first item that we would have to toss aside is reality.

[Nebula]

For those people, there is enough evidence. It's merely a matter of what you determine to be "evidence".

Well, not really. Evidence is evidence. Belief is belief. Belief is not evidence, but evidence can make you believe.

People believed the Earth was flat. They had no evidence. (The fact that it wasn't true is just icing on the cake.) Eventually, people proved, through evidence, that the world is a sphere.

For example, you or I wouldn't call a sunrise "evidence of a God" but many would and it's good enough for them.

That's okay for simple people who don't care about reality. People make stuff up all the time. They can be happy doing so. It does not mean they have evidence what they make up is true.

Personally, I would have to see evidence both ways. A lack of proof there's a God doesn't mean there's no God. Just like a lack of proof there's no God doesn't mean there is a God.

I really do think the whole, 'There's no evidence there isn't a god' is rather shallow. Someone makes an extraordinary claim and then requires those who don't believe it to come up with evidence to the contrary. Weird.

[fluffy]

Agnosticism, to not know. To be an agnostic is to be an atheist.

It is my understanding that an atheist does not believe in God, while an agnostic is uncommitted either way. Two different animals.