What Is Your Evidence?

[falcon9]

"What is the New Atheism?"

Answer: The early 21st century has seen secularism and atheism promoted throughout the Western world with an ever-increasing vigor and militancy. This has led to the emergence of the “new atheists,” notable members of which include best-selling authors such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens.

Again, what's up with the copy/pasting of all these deluded sources lately? And what's up with xtians making up and redefining terms?
"Join the New Atheism, maaan! It's radical!"
*puts on shades and jumps on skateboard while air guitaring*

The new atheists believe that empirical science is the only path to understanding reality. However, this is erroneous, since the very concept of "scientism" (the view that science is the only way to gain knowledge) is not itself subject to any scientific experiment and ultimately distills to a faith. Faith, far from being an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence," is a decision to reckon as true something that is not visible. Scientism is a metaphysical concept. Thus, the new atheists require faith of some description, even if not in God.

The only path? For an atheist to say this would make them arrogant. Science is just a more reliable source of getting realistic results, so it's the only known rational path. If, say, Shiva appeared tomorrow, atheists would simply throw their hands up and go "Ah! There seems to be a NEW rational path present!" since the metaphysical evidence has presented itself. Given articles like the one you posted here, the job of the believers is to show that there is an equal rational path with your beliefs. This has never been done due to the complete absense of the metaphysical claims or evidences of mythology. I'm fully open to changing my POV, but considering the many attempts that haven't surpassed basic skepticism really just gets me bored waiting for any legitimacy.

When it comes to things, Christians correctly approach the subject looking for strong evidence, while accepting that some matters may be beyond our current understanding.

Major contradiction. Strong evidence does not equate to mythology since, in the vast majority of the cases, there is zero evidence. You posting biased articles that I have already proven numerous times are full of lies and ignorance drives this point home.

Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits.

There's a huge difference between religious faith and hope with reasonable expectations. Atheists know that the purpose of these types of arguments isn't to persuade the other into joining their side, but just to present their side and educate people on information that they did not previously know about-- show contradictions and faults one may have never thought about or show problems and gaps in their sources of belief. Christopher Hitchens was absolutely amazing at doing this. If influencing healthy skepticism is bad, please inform me of how this is.

Rather than the intellectual the self-described atheist imagines himself to be, God has pronounced, “The fool says in his heart ‘there is no god’” (Psalm 14:1, 53:1).

Wow, the bible was right about something! A fool that would be! Atheists don't exclaim "There is no god and that's final!" as that's arrogance since we cannot disprove any mythology. This includes Santa too though-- we can't disprove this character or his mythology either. We're just highly skeptical of the claims and find that it's extremely easy to corner a believer in defined deities/santa in an argument given the lack of evidence. You'll always have the right to believe what you wish, but when you start mouthing off with arrogant behavior with no evidence to your claims, expect the skeptics to show your faults.

Excellent rebuttal, although it remains to be seen whether the challenges to the c&p will go unanswered or, dodged again.

[Abrupt]

It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism.

No, atheism itself is not a 'belief'; it is disbelieving the unsupported claims of religious believers.

To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else".  We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe.  When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion.  When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered.  Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is).  You try to imply that disbelief is an ignorance or unawareness, but the human mind does not formulate decisions/opinions like that normally, and when it does the result is a state of shock where the brain is effectively confused and shut down and disoriented. 

[falcon9]

To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else". 

No, that does not logically follow from the premise.  To disbelieve/not believe one specific thing does not imply that something else is believed or, that something else is disbelived.
 

We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe.  When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion. 

The 'reasoning' is faulty because it's incomplete. When one doesn't know, (has incomplete/unsufficient/inaccurate or no information), a decision is required to either proceed on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate/no information or, to attempt to obtain additional information which would contrubute to a more informed "opinion".  If one decides to proceed on the basis of inaccurate or no reliable information, (blind faith, for instance), that decision forms the basis for an uniformed opinion.

When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered.  Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is). 

That's at least partially correct, however incomplete.  The "refusal" to belief in nonsense, (that which lacks any evidentiary basis or, has an ambiguous basis), to a rational decision.  Accepting/believing in something which lacks an evidentiary basis requires an irrational decision to do so.
The distinction being conflated by your incomplete assertion is that the belief itself is distinguished from what is allegedly believed in.  This may seem subtle for some, (like those unable/unwilling to distinguish between a "believer" and a conceptual belief), however they do have parallel aspects.

You try to imply that disbelief is an ignorance or unawareness ... 

No such thing was implied or, could be rationally inferred from prior statements.  This is due to your penchant for fabrication and has no evidentiary basis therefore, I do not believe you.

[Abrupt]

To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else". 

No, that does not logically follow from the premise.  To disbelieve/not believe one specific thing does not imply that something else is believed or, that something else is disbelived.

It certainly does.  This is how the mind works to formulate decisions.  The only way one can disbelieve is if they believe something else, or know something else, or as I already mentioned they are in a state of shock or confusion.  You cannot actively disbelieve something without have factoring criteria into that decision and such a decision would not be made within a vacuum.  The only other disbelief is the implied state of 'wonder' where one witnessed something they cannot explain or comprehend and even though they saw it in such a way they cannot accept it -- this is the classic confusion.  If one then proclaims the event didn't happen or didn't happen as it appeared and they cannot provide a reason why it is left to the implication of "because they believe it could not have happened that way".

We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe.  When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion. 

The 'reasoning' is faulty because it's incomplete. When one doesn't know, (has incomplete/unsufficient/inaccurate or no information), a decision is required to either proceed on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate/no information or, to attempt to obtain additional information which would contrubute to a more informed "opinion".  If one decides to proceed on the basis of inaccurate or no reliable information, (blind faith, for instance), that decision forms the basis for an uniformed opinion.

The reasoning is sound.  If one doesn't know, they are under no compulsion to proceed, although they may if they choose to.  Deduction is a method of making logical decisions with missing data.

When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered.  Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is). 

That's at least partially correct, however incomplete.  The "refusal" to belief in nonsense, (that which lacks any evidentiary basis or, has an ambiguous basis), to a rational decision.  Accepting/believing in something which lacks an evidentiary basis requires an irrational decision to do so.
The distinction being conflated by your incomplete assertion is that the belief itself is distinguished from what is allegedly believed in.  This may seem subtle for some, (like those unable/unwilling to distinguish between a "believer" and a conceptual belief), however they do have parallel aspects.

When one describes something as 'nonsense', they are indicating a personal lack of capability to reason or understand the data at hand and it often implies an arrogant position of assuming that thus nobody else could and that the data has no relevance.  I have seen many logic puzzle that initially appear as nonsense or incomplete until one realizes the relevance of what is presented and how the missing parts can be extracted from the few given.  While it can mean 'corruption' in data, this relies upon recognizing how the valid data format would be comprised/formatted.

Refusing to accept something one doesn't understand is a personal thing.  Most people will not commit or act to something without a reason, and often people have inquired of others the need to know more in order to carry out a task (and I am not implying the need to know more in order to know how to do what is set forth, but the need to know more in order to understand the reason to do the task).  This is natural human behavior and the requirements vary from person to person and objective to objective.

You try to imply that disbelief is an ignorance or unawareness ... 

No such thing was implied or, could be rationally inferred from prior statements.  This is due to your penchant for fabrication and has no evidentiary basis therefore, I do not believe you.

You have repeatedly stated that your disbelief is not in itself a belief.  It is not possible to simply 'disbelieve' something without any basis for that disbelief and considering a disbelief falls between knowing something to be true and knowing something to be false (it isn't between knowing and not knowing as disbelief is active and deliberate), it favors the side of knowing something to be false.  To tend to know something to be false is to believe it to be false.

[falcon9]

To disbelieve something is to "not believe" something and implies to "believe something else". 

No, that does not logically follow from the premise.  To disbelieve/not believe one specific thing does not imply that something else is believed or, that something else is disbelived.

It certainly does. 

Because you say say, hardly.  The assertion you made is irrational because it has no rational basis.
 

This is how the mind works to formulate decisions.

That may be how your alleged "mind" allegedly "works" however, others are quite able to disbelief contentions which lack supporting evidence without having to have an alternate "belief".  If you are implying that requiring evidence is somehow a "belief" itself, I wouldn't put such illogic past you.
 

We either know or don't know; believe or don't believe.  When we do not know, it does not require a decision and is the absence of information or understanding that would enable one to formulate an opinion. 

The 'reasoning' is faulty because it's incomplete. When one doesn't know, (has incomplete/unsufficient/inaccurate or no information), a decision is required to either proceed on the basis of incomplete/inaccurate/no information or, to attempt to obtain additional information which would contrubute to a more informed "opinion".  If one decides to proceed on the basis of inaccurate or no reliable information, (blind faith, for instance), that decision forms the basis for an uniformed opinion.

The reasoning is sound.  

No, it isn't and its unsoundness was delineated above.  Your bland assertion has no basis in reasoning.
 

When we don't believe, though, it is a refusal or inability to accept and requires an active decision about the material being considered.  Disbelief is not ambiguous, it is precise and unambiguous (it doesn't require knowing a substitute for that which is not believed, it is just a belief that that which is not believed is not real of true and ergo, something else is). 

That's at least partially correct, however incomplete.  The "refusal" to belief in nonsense, (that which lacks any evidentiary basis or, has an ambiguous basis), to a rational decision.  Accepting/believing in something which lacks an evidentiary basis requires an irrational decision to do so.
The distinction being conflated by your incomplete assertion is that the belief itself is distinguished from what is allegedly believed in.  This may seem subtle for some, (like those unable/unwilling to distinguish between a "believer" and a conceptual belief), however they do have parallel aspects.

You have repeatedly stated that your disbelief is not in itself a belief. 

That's because a "dis-belief" is inherently not belief.

It is not possible to simply 'disbelieve' something without any basis for that disbelief ...

Sure it is; the basis for disbelief, (in this instance), is the lack of evidence to support the initially-asserted belief.
 

... and considering a disbelief falls between knowing something to be true and knowing something to be false (it isn't between knowing and not knowing as disbelief is active and deliberate), it favors the side of knowing something to be false. 

No, "belief" is an "active and deliberate" assertion that something is as 'believed'.  Conversely, disbelief is a rejection of such assertions because they are not supported by evidence and "favors" skepticism of dubious claims.
 

To tend to know something to be false is to believe it to be false.

That's a false conflation; 'tending' toward skepticism is not equivalent to knowing or believing something to be false.  A disbelief is not a belief, by definition, (as opposed to your continued attempts to redefine terms to suit your irrational agenda).

[sfister65]

Who knows why you've got the money. Maybe your just lucky. I do believe in God but I feel he's forgotton about us.

[HuffmanFamilyof4]

what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.

[falcon9]

what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.

I'll play the "devil's advocate" and that and provide the standard xtian response: 'it was due to free will', (which nevertheless looks suspiciously the same as 'no g-d to intervene').  Further, some xtians would insist that claiming that "there is NO G-D" would require evidence to support that negative contention, (either refuting every single false attribution to 'g-d' or, providing evidence that innumerable hypothesized things don't exist).

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary."
-- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

[HuffmanFamilyof4]

what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.

I'll play the "devil's advocate" and that and provide the standard xtian response: 'it was due to free will', (which nevertheless looks suspiciously the same as 'no g-d to intervene').  Further, some xtians would insist that claiming that "there is NO G-D" would require evidence to support that negative contention, (either refuting every single false attribution to 'g-d' or, providing evidence that innumerable hypothesized things don't exist).

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary."
-- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

.
man you know alot.so I guess that makes you a know-it-all and nobody like a know-it-all

[falcon9]

man you know alot.so I guess that makes you a know-it-all and nobody like a know-it-all

Your non-reasoning is faulty; how did you jump to that conclusion from what was posted?  Regardless of your specious reply, knowing someing, (whether a little or a lot), is not equivalent to knowing it all and therefore, is not the same as being a "know-it-all".  That term is generally used by ignorant people who 'resent' others knowing more about any particular subject matter and remains an inaccurate, emotion-based petulance.

[JediJohnnie]

what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.

I'll tell you what God was doing:The same thing he's done for thousends of years-Let people have they're Free Will.Can you not grasp the concept of Free Will?Would you prefer that God micro-manage your life as well?

Period.End of discussion.

[falcon9]

what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage. if there was a GOD why would he let that happen. I'll tell you why, it because there is NO GOD....period. end of discussion.

I'll tell you what God was doing:The same thing he's done for thousends of years-Let people have they're Free Will.

As if on cue, the xtian fundie reply was as 'predicted', Huffman, (that's not being a "know-it-all").

Period.End of discussion.

Such self-blindness is its own 'punishment'.

[Falconer02]

what was GOD doing the day James Holms began his shooting rampage.

"He was at home! Washing his tights!"

Let people have they're Free Will.Can you not grasp the concept of Free Will?Would you prefer that God micro-manage your life as well? Period.End of discussion.

You fail to recognize the obvious problems of an all-knowing god and the concept of freewill, therefore saying your piece and leaving is a blatant display of ignorance to the problems of your belief system.

...But disregard that for a moment- Explain to me the problem of having your god pop in quick and magically remove James's ammunition right before he started opening fire on the audience who were just trying to enjoy a great film on a nice day. Please refrain from the childish "God works in mysterious ways" statements please unless you want to further your village-idiot status.

[SMTM]

Wow, There are many unexplainable events that happen daily and may questions "why"? It's called "faith" and the proof is the Bible.

[falcon9]

It's called "faith" and the proof is the Bible.

Since the "bible" requires "faith" to be believed, (being a collection of religious opinions without evidence), that source does not constitute "proof".
The contention that it does relies upon a circularity; 'the bible requires no evidence/the bible says so/the bible is proof of itself/faith is belief sans evidence').

"The Bible as we have it contains elements that are scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No amount of
'explaining away' can convince us that such passages are the product of Divine Wisdom."
-- Bernard J. Bamberger