What Is Your Evidence?

[falcon9]

I am not redefining anything.    

Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).

[Abrupt]

I am not redefining anything.    

Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).

And I stand by that claim too.

[falcon9]

I am not redefining anything.    

Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).

And I stand by that claim too.

It doesn't matter whether or not you stand by your own false claims; your attempts to redefine atheism as a religion remain invalid.

[Abrupt]

I am not redefining anything.    

Right, because there aren't numerous extant examples of your doing that already, (e.g., attempts to redefine atheism as a religious belief).

And I stand by that claim too.

It doesn't matter whether or not you stand by your own false claims; your attempts to redefine atheism as a religion remain invalid.

Actually they don't, nor is it my attempt to redefine anything.  I provided sufficient and overwhelming evidence to back up my position (including the fact that early Christians were called 'atheists').  I find it difficult to imagine a way of thinking where one can have thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins without "having thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins".  You seem to equivocate 'theism' with 'religion' which is the main error in your rationale.

[falcon9]

... nor is it my attempt to redefine anything.  

"A-theism" means not theism.  Theism wasn't equated with religion, (since it's a subset, not the entire set).  You keep wanting to equate atheism with a religion and to keep rehashing the refutations showing that it's not a religion.  There are no atheistic religious tenets, supernatural entities nor faith-based requirements sans evidence.

[falcon9]

I find it difficult to imagine a way of thinking where one can have thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins without "having thoughts about the nature of the universe and our origins".  

That's simply your admission of having a limited 'imagination'.  It's entirely possible to have non-religious thoughts, (scientific or simply secular), about anything - including the general universe.  Only a sanctimonious, self-righteous religious adherent would assume that thoughts about the nature of the universe are all "religious" ones.  Such mis-generalizations are a hallmark of your narcissistic solipism.

[jcribb16]

It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything and of having been everywhere in the universe and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God absolutely does not exist. Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist.

Atheism cannot be proven, and God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Obviously, Christians believe strongly that God exists, and admit that God’s existence is a matter of faith. At the same time, we reject the idea that belief in God is illogical. We believe that God’s existence can be clearly seen, keenly sensed, and proven to be philosophically and scientifically necessary. “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world” (Psalm 19:1-4).

GotQuestions.org is one of my favorites for questions and answers.

[jcribb16]

"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.

The contention of the new atheists is, obviously, that there is no God. Adherents to the philosophy of new atheism believe that blind, natural forces are responsible for all of reality which we perceive. The new atheists do not restrict themselves to a passive disbelief. Rather, they are actively engaged in admonishing others to follow suit, to declare their non-belief in God, and to take the necessary steps to rid the world of religious belief and practice. As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion, “I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself.”

An ironic feature of the new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence." This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—God. A.W. Tozer said, “Faith rests upon the character of God, not upon the demonstration of laboratory or logic.” When one has faith in the character of a person, e.g. a mother or an aircraft pilot, one no longer needs to be skeptical or require strong evidence in respect to any service that he or she renders.

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. Indeed, many faith-filled scientists have been at the cutting edge of the scientific enterprise and test the evidence using thorough methods and techniques. 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. Scientism is self-refuting, and thus should not be believed. Scientism could be summed up as the belief that “empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything.” Of course, we might well then ask, “What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything?”

In contrast, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent God. Biblical theism is based around a set of sensible concepts, one of which is that there is no such thing as an atheist. Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits. But one wonders why, if they truly believe God does not exist, they spend their lives trying to disprove His existence. Does a man spend a lifetime trying to disprove the existence of unicorns or elves? Of course not, because he knows they don’t exist and wouldn’t bother. Even if he knows others believe in unicorns and elves, he doesn’t dedicate his life to trying to debate them out of that belief. Romans 1:19-20 declares plainly that all men do know God exists because God has clearly revealed that knowledge to them through the evidence of creation. Those that deny God are doing so out of the rebellion of a darkened heart (Romans 1:21). 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).

GotQuestions.org

[falcon9]

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 make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim ...

That would be a claim however, few, (or no), atheists have made such a claim here.  Instead, they've repeatedly requested evidence to support the religious adherents' claim that 'g-d does exist', (otherwise, what would they be believing in?).  No valid evidence has been forthcoming.

Atheists cannot prove that God does not, for example, live in the center of the sun, or beneath the clouds of Jupiter, or in some distant nebula. Since those places are beyond our capacity to observe, it cannot be proven that God does not exist.  

Demands to 'prove' a negative assertion constitute a logical fallacy.  There are innumerable things which cannot be proven to not exist and it is irrational to demand negative proofs when it Occam's Razor suggests that the one who makes a 'positive' assertion/claim provide proof to support their claim, (because evidence of one claim is less than non-evidence for a multitude of negative assertions).
  

God’s existence must be accepted by faith. Obviously, Christians believe strongly that God exists, and admit that God’s existence is a matter of faith. At the same time, we reject the idea that belief in God is illogical.

While irrational people are free to reject rational reasoning, (faith/belief= no evidence and therefore, is illogical), this does not convert the illogical into the logical.
 

We believe that God’s existence can be clearly seen, keenly sensed, and proven to be philosophically and scientifically necessary.  

Unfounded attributions are not evidence supporting a specious religious claim, (especially since the claim was admitted to being based upon "faith/belief" and not upon validly-attributible evidence).  Such illogical non-reasoning emphasizes why cutting & pasting from a tainted and biased xtian website indicates blind faith in nonsense.

[BonnyMA]

MANY SKEPTICS SAY THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RELIGIOUS ARE JUST WEAK PEOPLE  WHO NEED A CRUTCH TO LEAN ON AND THEIR RELIGION IS JUST A FARCE. DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR LIFE THAT GOD IS REAL?   HAVE YOU EVER EXPERIENCED OR WITNESSED A MIRACLE OR ENCOUNTERED AN ANGEL?


My Own Evidence:

Numerous times throughout my life, I have received money from very unexpected sources as an answer to prayer.  The miraculous thing about it was that the amount of money I received would turn out to be the exact amount (to the penny) to cover the need I had prayed about.  Throughout my life, this has also happened in response to prayer for better jobs, a house, a new car, a lost loved one returning home.  Of course I cant say that every situation I have prayed about turned out like I wanted it to.  The answer to some prayers has been "no", but I do know my prayers have all been heard and are still being  heard.

[falcon9]

"The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence."

"New" atheists, huh?  Well, the definition comes from dictionary sources and not "new" ones.  It remains that "faith" is 'an irrational belief in the absence of evidence', no matter how much religious fundie websites don't like the established definition.

"This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—-G-d."
GotQuestions.org

The only absurd "misrepresentation" is the biased xtian one herein which attempts to redefine a word within an entirely religious paradigm as not being something it is - blind, (no evidence), faith.  A blind faith in the existence of a supernatural egregore for which there is no validly-attributible evidence is still blind.

[BonnyMA]

Although I went to church as I child, I found the Lord as my savior and found him to be very real at the age of 21.  I don't refer to my faith as a "religion" as religion is cold and legalistic.  I believe that my faith is a personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus.  I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and see visions, dream dreams, and hear his voice guiding me.   I have seen miracles.  I have witnessed answers to prayers in all areas.  But all of these things are just gifts like a cherry on top a Sunday.   The real meaning behind my faith is that my God loved me enough to send his only son to die and suffer on a cross, raise him from the dead 3 days later, and sit him at the right hand of God the father, so that he could petition for me and with his blood save me from my own sins and mistakes, and reserve me a place in heaven.  This earth is only temporary and granted you can have a fabulous life here and I am so glad that you are blessed and do, but my God fills that empty spot inside me that only he can fill and makes me his bride so that someday I can live in heaven forever.  I pray that you find this river of life and the peace that passeth all understanding because sadly whether you believe in him or not, some day your life will end and you determine your path from there.   So as in the Indiana Jones movie --  "I hope you choose wisely"

[falcon9]

This does not constitute "evidence", (re: thread title), but does constitute an religious opinion sans evidence.

Although I went to church as I child, I found the Lord as my savior and found him to be very real at the age of 21.  I don't refer to my faith as a "religion" as religion is cold and legalistic.  I believe that my faith is a personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus.  I have been filled with the Holy Spirit and see visions, dream dreams, and hear his voice guiding me.   I have seen miracles.  I have witnessed answers to prayers in all areas.  But all of these things are just gifts like a cherry on top a Sunday.   The real meaning behind my faith is that my God loved me enough to send his only son to die and suffer on a cross, raise him from the dead 3 days later, and sit him at the right hand of God the father, so that he could petition for me and with his blood save me from my own sins and mistakes, and reserve me a place in heaven.  This earth is only temporary and granted you can have a fabulous life here and I am so glad that you are blessed and do, but my God fills that empty spot inside me that only he can fill and makes me his bride so that someday I can live in heaven forever.  I pray that you find this river of life and the peace that passeth all understanding because sadly whether you believe in him or not, some day your life will end and you determine your path from there.   So as in the Indiana Jones movie --  "I hope you choose wisely"

[Abrupt]

"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.

The contention of the new atheists is, obviously, that there is no God. Adherents to the philosophy of new atheism believe that blind, natural forces are responsible for all of reality which we perceive. The new atheists do not restrict themselves to a passive disbelief. Rather, they are actively engaged in admonishing others to follow suit, to declare their non-belief in God, and to take the necessary steps to rid the world of religious belief and practice. As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion, “I do everything in my power to warn people against faith itself.”

An ironic feature of the new atheism is its strong faith in the inferiority of having faith. The new atheists erroneously redefine "faith" as an "irrational belief in the absence of evidence." This misrepresentation of the nature of faith is absurd, for faith is not essentially a strong belief in something, but rather the ground of Christian faith is believing in someone—God. A.W. Tozer said, “Faith rests upon the character of God, not upon the demonstration of laboratory or logic.” When one has faith in the character of a person, e.g. a mother or an aircraft pilot, one no longer needs to be skeptical or require strong evidence in respect to any service that he or she renders.

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. Indeed, many faith-filled scientists have been at the cutting edge of the scientific enterprise and test the evidence using thorough methods and techniques. 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. Scientism is self-refuting, and thus should not be believed. Scientism could be summed up as the belief that “empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything.” Of course, we might well then ask, “What was the scientific experiment that established that empirical science is the only way to be sure about anything?”

In contrast, theism is aligned with the reality of a transcendent God. Biblical theism is based around a set of sensible concepts, one of which is that there is no such thing as an atheist. Clearly the atheists have faith of a sort, if only in their power to influence others to join their atheistic pursuits. But one wonders why, if they truly believe God does not exist, they spend their lives trying to disprove His existence. Does a man spend a lifetime trying to disprove the existence of unicorns or elves? Of course not, because he knows they don’t exist and wouldn’t bother. Even if he knows others believe in unicorns and elves, he doesn’t dedicate his life to trying to debate them out of that belief. Romans 1:19-20 declares plainly that all men do know God exists because God has clearly revealed that knowledge to them through the evidence of creation. Those that deny God are doing so out of the rebellion of a darkened heart (Romans 1:21). 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).

GotQuestions.org

Good read, thanks for sharing.

[Falconer02]

"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-- if you had proof, your beliefs would not adhere to blind faith but to actual proof. 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.