Atheism - Yet another faith ?

Aporia

Aporia wrote:

Well I disagree I would consider it to be believing in nothing because belief is based on the unknown.

"I don't believe" isn't a positive statement of belief.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Well then do you believe that Vampires exist?

Are there any agnostis who would be prepared to say both:

"I do not believe in vampires"
"I am agnostic because I don't know if a higher power exists or not"

I can see how you can be agnostic as part of an overall philosophy that universal negatives cannot be proven and that nobody can "know", but in that case it just seems bizarre to pick one thing from a list of billions of things you can't know.

Why pick one out of an infinite set and name it, when the set is far more important than one of it's multitude of members.

Hmm. If most of the people in your neighbourhood believed in vampires, claimed that they themselves had personally affected by vampires, and went every Sunday to a large building that had been specifically designed for learning about vampires (and of which there's usually a couple in every village), I think the question would arise as to whether you believed in vampires, no?

I think that under those circumstances "I don't believe" is a rather positive statement.

regards,
Scofflaw

samb

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. If most of the people in your neighbourhood believed in vampires, claimed that they themselves had personally affected by vampires, and went every Sunday to a large building that had been specifically designed for learning about vampires (and of which there's usually a couple in every village), I think the question would arise as to whether you believed in vampires, no?

I think that under those circumstances "I don't believe" is a rather positive statement.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yes the question would arise, and I would say no, I don't believe in vampires. Are you saying that; people believing something is evidence in itself. Are you therefore equally agnostic about all Gods. Are you agnostic about ghosts, angels, tarrod cards, horescopes etc simply because a certain number or percentage (what number or percent?) of people believe them.

Scofflaw

samb wrote:

Yes the question would arise, and I would say no, I don't believe in vampires. Are you saying that; people believing something is evidence in itself. Are you therefore equally agnostic about all Gods. Are you agnostic about ghosts, angels, tarrod cards, horescopes etc simply because a certain number or percentage (what number or percent?) of people believe them.

That's pretty much the case, yes. Except newspaper horoscopes, of course. To be honest, it's not a numerical cutoff. If only one person I met sincerely believed in something, and that something were not straightforwardly testable (leprechauns, for example), I would be agnostic about it unless I found some flaw that made it impossible. The improbability of their belief is irrelevant to my position. I am unlikely to need proof or disproof in most cases, so it gets filed under 'suspension of disbelief'.

I am, at the moment, agnostic about a startlingly large range of miscellaneous deities, and every year a few more gods whose existence I am indifferent to get added to the list. I am also agnostic about homeopathy, as a non-religious example.

People believing in something is certainly evidence. It's not evidence that can prove or disprove a case, but it's all that's necessary to open a case. An analogy would be the discovery of a dead body. The dead body is not itself evidence of anything except a dead body, but it is sufficient evidence to open a case (which may be closed by anything from a murder conviction to filing a report under 'death by natural causes').

If science has not answered or even addressed a question (for example the existence of God), it is incorrect to say that science somehow disproves God. The most you can say is that current scientific thought does not require God. Any statement more definite is a belief, or part thereof.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

I'd accept that I don't know if vampires or squirrels that can paint houses exist or not. I'd strongly lean towards "no", but technically I can't be sure.

Actually, I retract some of that. I'd be suprised if someone hadn't trained a squirrel to paint...they're remarkable intelligent creatures.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed, and since you've mentioned it, where exactly is atheism falsifiable?

Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis. It's a word to describe a common disposition - not having a belief in the existance of god(s). As bluewolf is trying hard to get across - atheism is not an assertion.

Scofflaw wrote:

To be honest, it's not a numerical cutoff. If only one person I met sincerely believed in something, and that something were not straightforwardly testable (leprechauns, for example), I would be agnostic about it unless I found some flaw that made it impossible. The improbability of their belief is irrelevant to my position. I am unlikely to need proof or disproof in most cases, so it gets filed under 'suspension of disbelief'.

The fact that you are agnostic about leprechauns says a lot. The burden of proof for you lies with disproving something exists, whereas an atheist's lack of belief is based on a complete deficit of evidence for its existance in the first place.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Atheism is not a scientific hypothesis. It's a word to describe a common disposition - not having a belief in the existance of god(s). As bluewolf is trying hard to get across - atheism is not an assertion.

As I said, I think that the statement "there is no God" certainly is an assertion, and an atheist who makes such a statement is a believer. I'd accept that an atheist who says "I don't believe in God because I have seen no proof" is not making an assertion of this kind. Both are atheists, I would say - you might not agree, of course.

The Atheist wrote:

The fact that you are agnostic about leprechauns says a lot. The burden of proof for you lies with disproving something exists, whereas an atheist's lack of belief is based on a complete deficit of evidence for its existance in the first place.

For some atheists, and not for others.


cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

So are you saying there is a difference between the following statements?

"I believe there is no God"

"I do not believe there is a God"

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

I am, at the moment, agnostic about a startlingly large range of miscellaneous deities, and every year a few more gods whose existence I am indifferent to get added to the list. I am also agnostic about homeopathy, as a non-religious example.

People believing in something is certainly evidence. It's not evidence that can prove or disprove a case, but it's all that's necessary to open a case. An analogy would be the discovery of a dead body. The dead body is not itself evidence of anything except a dead body, but it is sufficient evidence to open a case (which may be closed by anything from a murder conviction to filing a report under 'death by natural causes').

If science has not answered or even addressed a question (for example the existence of God), it is incorrect to say that science somehow disproves God. The most you can say is that current scientific thought does not require God. Any statement more definite is a belief, or part thereof.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm one of those atheists for whom "Atheism" is synonymous with naturalism and universalism. So when I state my lack of belief in god, I also mean that I don't belief in ANY supernatural agents or events. The evidence for the naturalism and universalism of the world is strong and endlessly plentiful and is usually given the shorthand name science. The assumptions of naturalism and universalism are not unjustified, and in fact are how we actually live day-to-day.

Am I 100% sure that naturalism and universalism do always apply to the world? Well, no. I'm not.
Is there any strong evidence to counter the evidence of naturalism and universalism? No.

Hence, I'm atheism 'til there is strong evidence to the contrary. This belief is based on, imho, evidence. The ultra-agnostic denies this evidence and claims we must not pick between to equally possible beliefs.

The ultra-agnostic position, as the previous examples by others suggest, is silly when taken literally. How should an ultra-agnostic greet their mother - "Hello woman I assume to have given birth to me, until the DNA test results arrive"? And this is a case that can be proved with science! Nobody actually lives as ultra-agnostic; living assumes naturalism and universalism.

Aporia

bluewolf wrote:

"I don't believe" isn't a positive statement of belief.

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.


If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.


That's why Atheism is a faith.

John Doe

Aporia wrote:

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.


If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.


That's why Atheism is a faith.

Going on this, there are only two possible states: having faith in something or not thinking about the issue. It renders the concept of 'a faith' meaningless.

Aporia

I believe there is a God - Faith in God



I don't believe there is a God - No faith in God


BUT,
no matter what you think will happen to you after you die it's called belief.
I'm not taliking about God when I say that I'm talking about the circumstances after you die. We all as humans have different beliefs as to what will happen to us.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

So are you saying there is a difference between the following statements?

"I believe there is no God"

"I do not believe there is a God"

Yes, I would say so. The latter I would take to mean "never having had any such belief, and never having been presented with any reason to make a decision on the matter, I simply lack belief in a God", or possibly "I have not a belief in God, much the same as I have no third eye". The former I take to be a positive statement of faith. I would add that you can also say "I believe the evidence shows that there is no God", which indicates your faith in the evidence and its interpretation.

By the way, I don't think any of these statements is necessarily more logically defensible than the others.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

Hence, I'm atheism 'til there is strong evidence to the contrary. This belief is based on, imho, evidence. The ultra-agnostic denies this evidence and claims we must not pick between to equally possible beliefs.

What is the evidence in question?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

As I said, I think that the statement "there is no God" certainly is an assertion, and an atheist who makes such a statement is a believer.

A person who makes such a statement is overstepping the "truth" mark, unless they add IMO, or such like. We're agreed that nobody can "know" anything for definite, it's just a question of whether that in itself is enough to push a belief.

Aporia wrote:

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.

If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.

That's why Atheism is a faith.

Did you hear that whoooshing sound? That was the same point going over your head.

One more time. Atheism is not the mental acceptance of anything. It is non-acceptance of theist ideas. They don't have faith in atheism - it's just a word - they just have no faith in the validity of any religion.

Aporia

The Atheist wrote:

One more time. Atheism is not the mental acceptance of anything. It is non-acceptance of theist ideas. They don't have faith in atheism - it's just a word to - they just have no faith in the validity of any religion.

I don't agree.

By being an Atheist you mentally accept that there is nothing
after you die.
Ie. you mind rots away.... the concept of a soul was invented by humans ect.


This mental acceptance is a belief.

Dades

Okay - look at it a different way.

Atheism is just the default position before somebody suggests that there is a higher power/afterlife.

It's also different things to different people. But what it is not - is a faith.

Atheism is a lack of faith. You can't say because someone is an atheist they believe in this, that or the other. You can only say what they don't believe, and that's only regarding one thing - any god.
To say "I do not believe" is NOT a positive statement of belief, no matter how you look at it. You cannot make any inference of what they do believe based on this. You can only say they lack belief in something.

UU

bluewolf wrote:

Atheism is a lack of faith. You can't say because someone is an atheist they believe in this, that or the other. You can only say what they don't believe, and that's only regarding one thing - any god.
To say "I do not believe" is NOT a positive statement of belief, no matter how you look at it. You cannot make any inference of what they do believe based on this. You can only say they lack belief in something.

......Or you could say atheism is a belief that there is no God to make the statement of believe positive. Hence, "I believe there is no god" or "I don't believe there is a god"......Which ever way one looks upon atheism it is still atheism regardless if it is viewed as a belief or lack of belief. After all, 2x2=4 and -2x-2=4. Both the same answer using two different alternative ways of getting it.

UU

UU wrote:

......Or you could say atheism is a belief that there is no God to make the statement of believe positive.

Yeah I already did at least twice.

hence, "I believe there is no god" or "I don't believe there is a god"......Which ever way one looks upon atheism it is still atheism regardless if it is viewed as a belief or lack of belief. After all, 2x2=4 and -2x-2=4. Both the same answer using two different alternative ways of getting it.

Some regard "I do believe there is not" as strong atheism and "I don't believe there is" as weak atheism.
The former is more of a claim, however.

Scofflaw

...and possibly we're getting ourselves in a knot because there are several different types of atheist - some for whom atheism is a faith (such as me), and others for whom it is not.

The question, then, "is atheism a faith?", is incorrect, and cannot be answered as it stands, because it supposes a monolithic atheism which does not exist.

Then we can get down to deciding whether those who have faith are true unbelievers...


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah I'm happy to leave it at that >.<

Dades

bluewolf wrote:

Yeah I'm happy to leave it at that >.<

I'm not. But I will*.

*maybe

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I'm not. But I will*.

*maybe

But why not?

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

atheism is not a faith OK

lostexpectation

lostexpectation wrote:

atheism is not a faith OK

Such a compelling argument. I think we're all convinced by your very large font. :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

Such a compelling argument. I think we're all convinced by your very large font. :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't know. Size isn't everything.

Certainly lets me know where he stands on the "atheist believers - are they unbelievers?" question.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Like in everyday life, lack of absolute proof is no reason for the suspension of belief. This is particularly the case when there is overwhelming evidence in support of one explanation over any alternative. If this is faith position then you'll have to conceed that every act of living is based on faith, no matter what the "proof"; a position that is only tenable in imagined isolation.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh, I don't know. Size isn't everything.

Reminds me of that joke - if someone who doesn't speak your language doesn't understand what you're saying, it'll work if you say it very loudly

Certainly lets me know where he stands on the "atheist believers - are they unbelievers?" question.

I think he's let know the people a mile away as well

Morbert

Aporia wrote:

Well to believe in something is - the mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

By being an Atheist you don't believe in God.

BUT, you believe that there is nothing out there.


If the term ''to believe'' is the mental acceptance of something then it's correct to say, as an Atheist, you believe that there is nothing after you die.


That's why Atheism is a faith.

Aporia... The word "faith" has a very subtle definition. And while there is nothing wrong with phrasing atheism as a belief in a universe without God, that does not mean atheism is a faith.

I, for example, am an Atheist, yet I have no faith in my atheism.

Scofflaw

Certainly the subleties of 'faith' present another possible point of confusion - however, I think we can dismiss one possibility straight away - atheism is certainly does not seem to be a faith in the sense that Christianity is a faith.

However: if there is, as certain oversized posts seem to suggest, a correct atheist position (that atheism is not a faith), and deviants from this position are 'not atheists', then you certainly have the beginnings of a faith.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Even if Atheism is a belief in the way that everything is a belief since we can't know anything for sure, it is still not a faith ... and really it isn't a belief either.

The only way atheism becomes a belief is if every single thing you think at any point in time is a belief. But that is only one definition of the word, and it is not the same context that is used when people talk about "belief" in a religious context.

Within a religious context atheism is not a belief, and it is certainly not a faith.

The only reason the concept of God is given any form of validity is because so many people have faith in it. If no one believed in God, if no one had ever come up with the idea in the first place, you would not say that not believing in a God is a belief in itself because the concept would not exist.

And you can't have a belief that a concept you aren't even aware of doesn't exist.

It is only because due to the history of religion that people are used to thinking that a faith in God is the default position, so if someone doesn't believe the default poistion that must be a belief going against the norm. Really it doesn't work like that.

Put it another way. Anyone reading this, invent up a mythical creature, but don't tell anyone. Now, do I believe that creature doesn't exist? Is that a belief (in a religous context) I have, is it a faith that i have? How can I since I am not even aware of what it is in the first place. I don't know anything about your mythical creature, I don't even know if you actually evented one or not. Yet going on the logic stated by some posters, I have to believe it does or doesn't exists.

Except in reality what I have is an abstance of belief in it as the default position, and that default position doesn't change, because I have no concept of it in the first place. This is not the same as saying I believe it doesn't exist.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

The only reason the concept of God is given any form of validity is because so many people have faith in it. If no one believed in God, if no one had ever come up with the idea in the first place, you would not say that not believing in a God is a belief in itself because the concept would not exist.

Of course that's true. It just isn't the case for most of us. Come on, honestly, how many of you were brought up without any knowledge of God? Brought up as atheists?

If you believed as children, even naively, then at some point you have chosen to not believe. Whether you have done so on the basis of the evidence is irrelevant - you're not doing so from some pure position of blissful ignorance of God. I don't know why so many of you seem to think that it's important - but I will say that if it's the thing you're proudest of about your atheism, that's a bit silly.

Certainly you cannot claim that there is "one way" in atheism.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Of course that's true. It just isn't the case for most of us. Come on, honestly, how many of you were brought up without any knowledge of God? Brought up as atheists?

It doesn't matter.

The point is that atheism is a rejection of an idea, not an idea in itself. People seem to think it is an idea in of itself because we are so conditioned to think that believing in a God is the default position, and even if we don't believe in God we have to believe something ("believe" used in its religious meaning).

My point was if none of us believed in a God the concept of rejecting the belief wouldn't be such a hard concept to crasp, since it would be the default state. In fact people would find it hard to understand a belief in God, not the other way around

Scofflaw wrote:

If you believed as children, even naively, then at some point you have chosen to not believe.

But thats the point, you don't really choose not to believe. Its not like switching between being a Catholic and a Protestant. It is not a conversion or anything. You just eventual go "no thats nonsense", in the same way you go "no Santa is nonsense, made up by our parents". When I was 10 I didn't choose to believe that Santa doesn't exist. I just stop believing he does.

It might seem like a sutle difference, but it is an important one.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't know why so many of you seem to think that it's important - but I will say that if it's the thing you're proudest of about your atheism, that's a bit silly.

It's simply important to correct something that is wrong - especially given the forum we are in.

Your notion of pride is misguided. Like the notion of "faith", it is simply trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Of course there are 'proud' atheists - but there are also proud naturists, swingers, skydivers etc. Doesn't make any of them "believers"...

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

but there are also proud naturists, swingers, skydivers etc.

Hopefully not at the same time

Its a good point thought. Atheism is a description, not a belief. You might be a proud person, you might be proud to be an atheist. But you might not, or you might not even think like that.

People really need to try and stop viewing atheism as another belief system. It isn't a belief system, its not even a belief. It is simply a description of a person who does not believe in God.

The point of my original post a few posts back, is that it is only because belief in "God" has become so part of human culture that it is even necessary to label someone an atheist because we don't fit into the norm (ie the falsehood that everyone must have a religion, a faith, therefore atheism must be a religion or faith).

If the vast majority of people didn't believe in gods it would be the norm and a description wouldn't be needed in the first place

For example, we don't feel the need to label people who don't believe in dragons, because the vast majorty of people don't believe in dragons.

Zombrex

Aporia wrote:

By being an Atheist you mentally accept that there is nothing
after you die.

No you don't. I know loads of atheists who believe in an after life

How many times does it have to be said, Atheism is simply a rejection, or lack of belief, in a god. nothing more, nothing less

Yossie

Wicknight wrote:

How many times does it have to be said, Atheism is simply a rejection, or lack of belief, in a god. nothing more, nothing less

I like pretty much all of your posts, but I'm afraid i'm one of those atheists for who it is a (justified) belief system;)

You right - theism is the default position, but the decision to reject the default position takes reasons/evidence, although I'd like it if people did just naturally stop believing in god. It's the value of those reasons that makes the atheist for me.

For me, if someone is atheist because they believe it was actually aliens who created man etc., then it doesn't mean much. I've no interest in defending a "label".

For me, atheism comes from a worldview that is materialist/naturalist. I suppose you might label me a materialist/naturalist who is also an atheist, where for me that is a tautology.

From my experience, most atheists come from the materialist direction, although the number of non-materialist atheisms around here is perturbing.

Sorry if this makes your task any harder

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

No you don't. I know loads of atheists who believe in an after life

How many times does it have to be said, Atheism is simply a rejection, or lack of belief, in a god. nothing more, nothing less

OK. I am interested to see where we can go with this...'a rejection' is interesting - as I've said, I don't discount the existence of God, because I have no way of discounting the evidence for God.

Let me just state that I have no interest in denigrating the position that atheism is simply lack of belief, and have no objection to others denigrating my position! This is a purely personal viewpoint that I am expressing.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Yossie

Scofflaw wrote:

OK. I am interested to see where we can go with this...'a rejection' is interesting - as I've said, I don't discount the existence of God, because I have no way of discounting the evidence for God.

Let me just state that I have no interest in denigrating the position that atheism is simply lack of belief, and have no objection to others denigrating my position! This is a purely personal viewpoint that I am expressing.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Can i take it that you mean you don't discount the existence of anthing because you have no way of discounting the evidence of anything? Or is god a special case?

Zombrex

Yossie wrote:

For me, atheism comes from a worldview that is materialist/naturalist.

Thats ok, I didn't mean to imply that Atheists don't have a belief system.

The point i was making is that if you and I are both atheists you can't infer anything about our belief systems from that.

You might believe in completely stuff than me. Your morals might be completely different than mine. How we came to the conclusion there is no God might also be completely different. I know you said you don't agree, but someone who believes there is no God and that life on Earth was created by Aliens is an Atheist. So is the person who believes there is no God and that life started on Earth because of a comet that crashed billions of years ago.

Now because we are both atheists one could assume that we share asimilar view point on certain things, but then again we might not, you don't just don't know.

Scofflaw

Yossie wrote:

Can i take it that you mean you don't discount the existence of anthing because you have no way of discounting the evidence of anything? Or is god a special case?

Not quite. There's no material evidence for God that I'm aware of, but there is a lot of non-material evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't discount the existence of God, because I have no way of discounting the evidence for God.

But then you have no way of discounting a lot of things. you have no way of discounting the fact that I might be an Alien from the planet Zarg. You have no way of discounting if the planet Zarg exists or not.

But do you think it is likely. Can you, for almost certain, say I am not in fact an alien, and I am not in fact from the Planet Zarg.

Or to use an example I used in an earlier post, how do you know a dragon isn't about to fall on your head. There evidence at all that a dragon is about to fall on your head, but then there is no evidence that a dragon isn't about to fall on your head.

You only know for certain based on direct evidence that a dragon isn't about to fall on your head when you look up and see that there is no dragon about to fall on your head. But there might be in a few minutes. Do we spend our lives contantly looking up? Or can I say right now, without having to look up that a dragon is not about to land on my head. I think I can.

How can I do this when I have no direct evidence that this is not about to happen? Firstly I look at the concept of a dragon. It is an invention of humanity. Despite the fact that for thousands of years, and across a number of countries, people have reported "dragons" with the modern view on the world we can see that the dragon is simply a myth, at best a miss-understanding of real world creatures like crocadiles and lizards.

So I can safely say that dragons don't exist. I actually have no evidence that dragons don't exist, and it contradicts what a lot of other humans have said, but I can still safely conclude that dragons don't exist. I am not a dragon agnostic, I am a dragon atheist. I don't believe dragons don't exist, I reject the concept of the dragon as something based in reality.

So the likely hood of a dragon, a creature that actually never existed in the first place, landing on my head in the next few minutes, is certainly not going to happen. Of course I would be a bit surprised if it did happen, but I don't think anyone is going to argue with me if I state for certain it isn't going to happen.

Added to that, there is a roof over my head. I know there was roof over my head 5 minutes ago. I have no direct evidence that it is still there, I have not looked up yet, but I can safely say it will still be there now based on my current understanding of the universe (ie it would be impossible for the roof to be removed without me noticing). So even if dragons do exist, there is another fact that means I can safely say a dragon falling on my head isn't going to happen in the next few minutes.

So, despite the fact I have no direct evidence for this statement, I can say for certain that a dragon will not fall on my head in the next few minutes. Expanding on that I can say for certain that a dragon will never fall on my head.

The argument that we can never really know anything that we don't have direct evidence for is fine, but in reality we don't live our lives like that, or even shape our view of reality like that.

I don't believe gods are real anymore than i believe dragons are real. And I can say for certain that neither exist, even though I have no direct evidence that neither of them exist

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Not quite. There's no material evidence for God that I'm aware of, but there is a lot of non-material evidence.

Such as? As far as I am aware there is no evidence for the existence of gods, material or otherwise.

John Doe

So would you agree, Wicknight, that what you were doing in the last post was basically rejecting existentialism or empiricism?
Sorry, the last-but-one post.

Ickle Magoo

Scofflaw wrote:

Not quite. There's no material evidence for God that I'm aware of, but there is a lot of non-material evidence.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What is non-material evidence? Would that not be a contradiction in terms....if it is non-material, how can it be classed as evidence?

Yossie

Ickle Magoo wrote:

What is non-material evidence? Would that not be a contradiction in terms....if it is non-material, how can it be classed as evidence?

As Mr Hutz might say "we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture, which are kinds of evidence."

I think its shorthand for "weak" evidence.

Zillah

Is anyone actually enjoying this discussion any more?

Yossie

Wicknight wrote:

The point i was making is that if you and I are both atheists you can't infer anything about our belief systems from that.

Now because we are both atheists one could assume that we share asimilar view point on certain things, but then again we might not, you don't just don't know.

My point is that, imho, one can justifiably hold certain prejudices about atheists, including that they are materialisticly inclined etc. These may sometimes be false, but I don't think that undermines the validity of the assumptions.

Me knowing someone is Irish, means i can justifably assume they speak English, although this might prove not to be the case. I wouldn't be justified in assuming they speak chinese, or were morally corrupt, however.

It appears, for you that there are no justified prejudices about atheists other than "no belief in god", where I hold that there are some justified assumptions. A difference that can only come out in the wash of a many atheist opinion.

John Doe

Zillah wrote:

Is anyone actually enjoying this discussion any more?

Not I, that's for sure. We're going around in pretty little circles. Wheeeee.