When is no evidence, evidence? When proving a negative! Does this mean that atheism is evidence based?
Unlike religion which is faith based requiring no evidence!
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
18 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.non evidence becomes evident after atheistic DNA,,,,,Darwins Natural Laws
RobertGalloway
Level 5
May 23, 2018
1
I'd say so! We were all born Atheists. And, will die one!
AtheismIsLife
Level 6
May 23, 2018
1
If a lack of evidence for god is a reason not to believe, then that lack of evidence is sort of evidence, like an empty room is evidence, in a case where someone claims there’s a zebra in it. The lack of zebra is the proof it’s not there (seems redundant)
Maybe I have that mixed up
AsAbove
Level 4
May 23, 2018
1
We understand......????
We are all born atheists up until the point when people started lying to us.
TheLiberalGent
Level 7
May 23, 2018
0
it's a belief but not a fact
LeighShelton
Level 8
May 22, 2018
0
@atheist true but if you can't prove it then its what you believe
Yes, in a manner of speaking. No evidence, no belief.
NothinnXpreVails
Level 8
May 22, 2018
1
The burden of proof always rests on the person claiming the presence and existence of a person, thing, phenomena or concept.
I don't need to prove phlogiston does not exist, since no evidence can be provided to indicate that it does, the insistence that its intangibility, invisibility, inaudibility, tastelessness and odourless ness are inherent properties of Phlogiston is no excuse for a lack of evidence and lead people eventually to look for another explanation for fire, which turned out to be easily evidential, which is why no one any longer accepts that fire is made of phlogiston.
Oddly though when the same people apply the same logic to god(s) they instead decide he, she or it still exists anyway.
Odd that.
LenHazell53
Level 9
May 22, 2018
0
@TheMiddleWay Michelson and Morley did not set out prove it did not exist, they employed the scientific method to test the hypothesis to see if it could be falsified.
This is not shifting the burden of proof it is testing.
@TheMiddleWay
So why do we assume insanity as the most likely cause of some one claiming he has an invisible and undetectable hedgehog called Mr Pigglepog, following him about?
Do we really need to prove Mr Pigglepog does not exists, other than as a delusion, a fantasy?
It is not necessary to prove the none existence of anything when there is no evidence at all that such a thing does exist.
In such a case the default position is the assumption that it is highly unlikely that said thing does exist and so can be assumed not to, until proven otherwise.
Again the burden of proof lies with the claimant of existence.
To do other wise is to invite chaos and a world where the most time consuming activity of all science is to continually prove there are no unicorns, hobgoblins, hipporhinostracows, and anything else anyone can dream up on a whim.
@TheMiddleWay saying you are drug free is, if true, a statement not a claim, and it is not a negative statement it it is a positive statement I AM drug free, I think you are equivocating now.
@TheMiddleWay
Your problem is that you seem to be labouring under the falsehood that simply denying a proposition constitutes a counter proposition and this shifts the burden of proof.
That is simply not the case.
If it is proposed that X exists, the proponent should be able to provide evidence of the existence of X
Replying that I see no evidence of the existence of X and therefore cannot concur, does not amount to a counter proposal.
The burden of proof therefore remains with the original proponent.
On your drug example, the burden of proof is on the accuser, the accused is presumed innocent til proven guilty.
This is page one philosophical analysis and law, and I am prepared to waste no more time on this.
Atheism is not evidence based. Religion is separate from people asking the question of if there is a God or not. I think that's a big mistake that people make. They take the assertions of the religious of not being able to prove the existence of God as the end all. Did people wonder about what's out there before mass religion as we know it today as preached from and learned from the Bible, Torah, etc.? Most likely. These questions have been in our minds from the beginning of humans.You can't prove it one way or the other. I am not going to get into the whole burden of proof argument. That has been discussed ad nauseum in another thread, and not politely or respectfully from at least one viewpoint.
Piece2YourPuzzle
Level 8
May 22, 2018
0
I am not going to go over it again with you. It's just going to go in circles.
Once again though: Appeal to Ignorance
@atheist Atheists show no evidence, just like theists show no evidence. Why is this so hard to understand? What "appeal to evidence"? This has little to do with theists proving that there is a God. Nobody here is contesting that. They DO have a burden of proof! You making the claim that there is no God from the lack of evidence from theists, also has a burden of proof. You keep trying to justify your claim by the theists lack of evidence of their claim. It doesn't work that way and is not logical.
You have been shown the proper term, and it's a peer reviewed academic resource:
[iep.utm.edu]
I will believe the entire philosophical academic community along with the beginnings of Aristotle. Sorry.
No, but neither is religion.
GeorgeRocheleau
Level 8
May 22, 2018
1
Yeah, sorry.
The natural state is no believe. So if someone asked if you believed there were purple unicorns walking down the street a few miles over... There would be no reason to have a believe on it. Thus you lack belief. Didn't mean someone couldn't prove it to you, but lacking that... What is there to believe?
JeffB
Level 6
May 22, 2018
0
Only in the sense that atheists ask for evidence and reject blind faith.
Heraclitus
Level 8
May 22, 2018
0
No evidence is never evidence. So let’s say I make a claim and to date there is no evidence to support my claim. Until evidence is provided, the truth value of my claim is not known. So what does this mean? Well once evidence is put forth either supporting the claim or opposing the claim now we can say things like “it’s likely in light of the evidence, that the claim is true” or “because of this piece of evidence, it makes this claim less likely to be true”. Be careful not to say “well there is no evidence of this claim; therefore, it is false”. If you do this, now you are a making a claim to have knowledge that a claim is false.
Edit: I put a quotation mark after the word ‘false’
Wavefunction
Level 5
May 22, 2018
1
@atheist As I understand what you are asking, then no it isn’t evidence that my claim is false. As you say: I have presented evidence, but what evidence has the investigator presented to refute my claim: all they have done is say “You have no evidence” now the investigator has to show if their statement is true or false.
@atheist that’s true but I think there is a difference between evidence that the negative of a claim is true and simply a lack of evidence: one implies that a claim is false (or at least is provisionally so) and the other implies nothing as to the truth value of original claim. The only thing that “no evidence of a claim” becomes evidence for is that to date there is no evidence to support a claim; however, that is tautological (true but not very useful if we wish to expand our knowledge base). So, and feel free to correct me if I’m misunderstanding what you’ve said or what you’re trying to say, basically the only situation where no evidence could conceivably be counted as evidence is in the case where to date there is no evidence to support a claim, but this does not imply the claim is false: the truth value of the claim is this to date ambiguous.
@atheist well i would say that since there is no evidence that the claim is true, then there is no reason to provisionally accept it. The notion of accepting an unfalsifiable claim as true, as far as I know, does not lead to the furtherance of knowledge. This is reason I don’t provisionally accept the claim that there is a god because His existence doesn’t add anything to our body of knowledge.
I am so sick of this question.
Atheism does NOT "need" evidence.
Atheism is believing that no gods exist. Period.
There is NOTHING that proves that they do.
Therefore, atheism is a perfectly rational position to take.
If anyone wants to say that gods exist, the burden of proof is on THEM.
KKGator
Level 9
May 22, 2018
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3037 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.