The Friendly Atheist had an article about Ryan Bell’s theological status. I got caught up in debating with some people, and, as one would expect, it promptly turned into a class on Epistemology 101. In particular, I’d like to address one argument we get on occasion that really doesn’t help the apologist’s position.
Present your evidence and reasons for atheism being true.
Not annoying enough? Here’s some more renditions.
I’m beginning to think you have no arguments for atheism being true. There is no evidence for it that you have put on the table that I can analyze and compare with my arguments.
Better for you to say “I prefer God not to exist”. That way all you are telling me is its just a preference like your favorite ice cream flavor or its just a psychological condition of yours. Then you don’t have to defend your atheism as being true about reality.
Don’t worry about Ganessh. Put your arguments for atheism on the table and then we can discuss them. Don’t be afraid or just admit you have none.
Not true. I have used it where appropriate. I have yet to see you give a coherent argument for your atheism. All I see from you is snide remarks.
How would you falsify atheism? How do we test atheism?
No. You are making a claim about reality and you need to present the evidence for it. Otherwise its just wishful thinking.
It’s all one repeated attempt to shift the burden of proof.
It’s not as though we didn’t try to correct him.
This has already been explained to you, liar. You are dishonest. At least Joe seemed to be sincerely interested in discussion, as opposed to being an obnoxious troll.
My atheism is not the position that goes does not exist. My position as an atheist is that the theist have not supported their claims, so I don’t believe them.
That’s the last time I’m explaining it.
This particular individual is a cargo-cult science bot. They merely adopt the language of those arguing with them, without actually understanding what’s being said. Note my accusation of his being dishonest. That pattern is then mimicked later:
You are not being honest. There is no evidence for multiverses. That article gives no evidence. Just speculations.
Why are you afraid to put your arguments for atheism on the table for scrutiny?
Try debating someone who has the epistemological prowess of a bucket of sand. That one point above, is repeated ad nauseam. I can understand, actually. The BibleBot4000 has asked a question, and not received a straight-forward answer, so therefore, BibleBot4000 has seemingly positively matched a weakness in the target’s armor.
Suppose this entity barges into some kind of physics conference, and starts repeatedly screaming “WHAT TEMPERATURE DOES THE NUMBER 7 MELT!” It thinks, erroneously, that because the people haven’t returned a temperature value as an answer, that somehow it has disproven physics.
There’s another reason for the lack of answer – the question is incoherent, and thus, cannot result in a meaningful answer.
I don’t believe the theists have provided sufficient evidence to convince me that this “god” thing exists. So when I’m asked to demonstrate that “atheism is true an accurate”, what is being asked, exactly? Am I supposed to demonstrate that I don’t believe the theists? I don’t know how to convey my mental state, other than telling them my mental state.
It’d be like the theist saying “There’s an invisible dragon in the garage“, and you say, “What? I don’t believe you“, and it responds, “Demonstrate that you not believing me is true and accurate.”
The droid must keep returning to this notion that atheism is the explicit assertion that gods do not exist, despite that error being repeatedly explained to it. Otherwise, the question is pointless.
The droid may think it’s won some kind of victory, but to everyone else, appears to be an aloof babble-bot who is in way over its head/CPU. Theists gain nothing by misrepresenting our position. Rather, they blithely demonstrate their dishonesty. If you want to know what my position is, I’ll gladly tell you. Don’t try to tell me what it is.