Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[Obvious Leo]

I've been looking for someone willing to shore up his sagging case,

You'll have to get a new scriptwriter because trotting out the same line over and over again is not going to work. A refresher course in basic English comprehension wouldn't go astray either. For the last time.

AN ATHEIST IS NOT MAKING A CASE.

[uwot]

Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

Atheists do not claim to know anything; it is your straw man again. I'll try a different version. Mr Can, as a Christian, is there no imperative to be honest? If there is, are you genuinely too stupid to understand the difference between these two claims?
1. There is no evidence that god exists.
2. There is evidence that god does not exist.

[thedoc]

Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

Atheists do not claim to know anything;

Then we have encountered different groups of Atheists, because several that I have listened have indeed claimed that they know there is no God. The claim to not know if there is a God, is agnostic. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your claim.

[Hobbes' Choice]

and have eliminated any possibility that any of it could be true."

You're being silly again. You cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, not Russell's teapot, the Loch Ness monster, sasquatch or fairies.

Good of you to point that out. Quite so...but it's not my "silly." It's the Atheist's. Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

Realistically, an Atheist has two choices: 1) When he says that God does not exist, he's making a knowledge claim, or 2) When he says God does not exist, he's not making a knowledge claim (maybe a wish statement, a personal claim, an inclination or an emotion). There are only those two choices. Basic logic, that: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. If it is a knowledge claim, it's a knowledge claim: if it's not, it's not.

But if it's 2) it's not serious as a consideration for anyone else. And the Atheist doesn't just want to say that he knows...he wants to add that other people ought to know it too, or ought to listen to him for some reason.

If it's a knowledge claim, then the onus is on the Atheist to explain how he knows. But the burden of proof to claiming "God does not exist" is, as you rightly say, beyond possibility.

So we're back to wishful thinking. And truthfully, that's all Atheism ever is.

I feel sad for you that you find yourself having to justify your incoherent position on god by criticising atheism; when all the burden of proof is on you.
And this is all you have. Post after post after post. Yet your position is without substance.

Everything you have is made ridiculous by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

For myself, my atheism is contentless. It only exists whilst evil people who justify their atrocious behaviour because of a belief in god, exist.
When fools like you come to the inevitable conclusion that you have nothing and join the ranks of atheists who live without your delusion, then you shall see how sad you have been.

Atheism is not a claim about knowledge. It is a position of skepticism. The same skepticism that rejects all other incoherent and stupid beliefs: homeopathy, astrology, spiritualism, prescience, telekinesis, telepathy.

And so for any of these categories of what you might laughingly call "knowledge claims", the same position applies for god.

[uwot]

Then we have encountered different groups of Atheists, because several that I have listened have indeed claimed that they know there is no God.

Can you quote any of them?

The claim to not know if there is a God, is agnostic. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your claim.

No thanks doc. Agnosticism, as it relates to gods, is the belief that any claim to know that there isn't a god is as inadequate as any claim to know there is. However, atheism is not dependent on knowledge. Here's Wikipedia on the topic:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Note that there is no mention of knowledge.
Same question to you doc, can you really not understand the difference between these two claims?
1. There is no evidence that god exists.
2. There is evidence that god does not exist.

[uwot]

Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that no atheist responding to this thread has claimed to know that your god does not exist, yet you publicly persist in accusing us of doing so. I don't know if the ten commandments carry any weight for you, but number 9 says: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. You are doing precisely that and, if you believe in such a place, you will burn in hell for it Mr Can.
If you must argue, then challenge what we actually say. Forever is a very long time to have a red hot poker up your bum.

[henry quirk]

And, like Doc, who I'm also fond of, it's always good to see you in-forum, Mannie...

[Immanuel Can]

If you must argue, then challenge what we actually say.

You are simply wrong. I am not "bearing any witness" that is false. In fact, I was not attempting to tell you what Atheism believes: rather, I was asking if Atheism was premised on a knowledge claim or not.

And honestly, it doesn't matter which way you answer, because you're logically cooked either way, I'm afraid. And you appear to see that problem coming, because you're turning yourself inside out in order to avoid the obvious dilemma. But it just doesn't work...and I'm betting you know that. Any reasonable person would. Atheism, in either form you declare it, is simply irrational.

If you declare, as you appear to do in your last response, that Atheism is not a knowledge-premised position, then Atheism is speaking about something it frankly admits it actually knows nothing about. If it is making a knowledge claim (i.e. "I know there is no evidence for Christianity"), then it is indeed making a knowledge claim, and you can no longer cogently argue that it has nothing do defend. It must defend it's own basic knowledge claim, then.

There is simply no other alternative: not because I say so, but because logic says so. It's called the "Law of the Excluded Middle," and it states that something cannot genuinely "be" and yet "not be" at the same time, as long as by "be" we mean the same thing in both statements. Therefore, Atheism cannot both "be" a non-knowledge-requiring claim and "be" a knowledge claim. It is one or the other. Logic says so.

So you need to pick a horse and ride it, logically speaking. Switching horses in midstream will perhaps confuse your less astute pursuers; but of course anyone with even a smattering of logic will catch you at it.

[Immanuel Can]

And, like Doc, who I'm also fond of, it's always good to see you in-forum, Mannie...

What I like about you most, maybe, is that you are funny but civil. You engage in debate with enthusiasm and wit, but never seem to feel the need to fall to low tactics. You add value.

So even though we do not always (or perhaps often, even) agree, I like you. You are agreeable. You work to advance thought, even when you play "devil's advocate," to coin the old phrase, or throw out a good, curmudgeonly line.

For me, watching someone spout personal insults or words they hope will be shocking reminds me of Kim. Kim was a girl I knew in public school, and one day she accidentally soiled herself in front of the whole class. Even as a small child, I remember feeling instant pity for her self-humiliation, and having the good sense not to make a point of saying anything about it later.

For some reason, the class had the same idea. I have no idea why they decided to be merciful; maybe her shame was just so great they could not but empathize. But to my knowledge, none of them mentioned it to her...not even once...and not even at the time. In a week, Kim was fine, and everyone could pretend she hadn' t done it. And now, I'm sure she's a fine woman and it's all in the past.

So whenever I observe petty crudities in an interlocutor's style, I make it a rule to pass over them, say nothing, and move on. There seems to be no reason to exacerbate the humiliation of those who soil themselves in public. Passing over it lets me be nice to them if they ever grow up, and not to become a painful reminder of their faults. It means there's a chance we might have a decent relationship in the future.

But that's certainly not you. In the most strident debate, you seem to hold your style but stay civil. Good on you, say I.

[uwot]

...I was not attempting to tell you what Atheism believes:

Er? Yes you were:

Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

rather, I was asking if Atheism was premised on a knowledge claim or not.

And for the umpteenth time, no it isn't. Perhaps you overlooked the reply to thedoc:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Can you see the word 'knowledge' anywhere in the above?

If you declare, as you appear to do in your last response, that Atheism is not a knowledge-premised position, then Atheism is speaking about something it frankly admits it actually knows nothing about. If it is making a knowledge claim (i.e. "I know there is no evidence for Christianity"), then it is indeed making a knowledge claim, and you can no longer cogently argue that it has nothing do defend. It must defend it's own basic knowledge claim, then.

Been there. Done that.

On your side, then, this requires the background claim:

No it doesn't. But anyway...

"I know everything that has been presented as evidence for a god, have weighed it all rationally,

Pretty much. As an undergraduate I had to read and criticise everyone from Plato to Plantinga. None of them, not Aristotle, not Aquinas, not Anselm, not Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant (for or against), Hegel, Kierkegaard nor anyone else stands up to scrutiny. I have debated publicly with advocates of intelligent design/irreducible complexity and the only vote I lost was in a Catholic college. Take whatever succour from that you wish.
Unlike you, however, I have always responded to the issues raised and do not try to manoeuvre my interlocutor into a position they do not hold. As I say, you are fighting your own straw man, which any fool can do. You have to do better, Mr Can.

and have eliminated any possibility that any of it could be true."

You're being silly again. You cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, not Russell's teapot, the Loch Ness monster, sasquatch or fairies. What you are asking is akin to asking whether I have looked under every toadstool on the planet to prove that fairies don't exist, then allowed for the possibility that they might be hiding, or that they are only visible to those that really, really believe in them. As an afairyist I have absolutely no burden of proof, I am only obliged to demonstrate that any argument that claims to show they exist is inadequate. Same with god. Same with the resurrection. The arguments that either are true are only compelling to those who wish them so.

[thedoc]

Then we have encountered different groups of Atheists, because several that I have listened have indeed claimed that they know there is no God.

Can you quote any of them?

Will this do? At 13:10 he states "There is no God".

Also at 7:30 he states "The Bible is not the word of God" later he asserts that it is false. He then goes on to use Bible verses to show how bad Christianity is. It seems odd that he uses a source that he claims is false, when prior to that, he claimed to only base his belief on what he knew to be true.

[Immanuel Can]

...I was not attempting to tell you what Atheism believes:

Er? Yes you were:

Atheism makes a claim it cannot back. It essentially says, "I know the unknowable."

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Can you see the word 'knowledge' anywhere in the above?

Ah, but can you see the concept? It's necessary there: if the statement "atheism is a position that there are no deities," then Atheism is a claim to knowthat. If the word "position" doesn't impress you as bespeaking knowledge-claims, perhaps you should look it up. But first, maybe you should just look up the word "synonym."

Here's the OED:

Position (n): A person’s point of view or attitude towards something:
‘the party’s position on abortion’.

So is Atheism an evidentiary position, or merely an "attitude"? Take your pick, and you're cooked.

Still, I can see exactly where you are now. It seems your position is that you will use Atheism as a knowledge claim in attack, but deny it is a knowledge claim when you are in defense. You will assert the position (or reason, or knowledge, or evidence...it makes no difference to your case) that Theists are wrong, then deny that you have to provide any evidence, by saying "Atheism isn't a position (or knowledge-claim, or predication on evidence, or extraction by reason).

But you're still trying to switch horses amid-stream.

[thedoc]

The claim to not know if there is a God, is agnostic. Perhaps you would like to reconsider your claim.

No thanks doc. Agnosticism, as it relates to gods, is the belief that any claim to know that there isn't a god is as inadequate as any claim to know there is. However, atheism is not dependent on knowledge. Here's Wikipedia on the topic:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Note that there is no mention of knowledge.
Same question to you doc, can you really not understand the difference between these two claims?
1. There is no evidence that god exists.
2. There is evidence that god does not exist.

In this usage a "position" is a statement of knowledge or belief.

[uwot]

It seems your position is that you will use Atheism as a knowledge claim in attack,

You are bearing false witness again. I have not done this.

but deny it is a knowledge claim when you are in defense. You will assert the position (or reason, or knowledge, or evidence...it makes no difference to your case) that Theists are wrong,

If you can back this up with a quote from me, I will give you a biscuit. If you fail, it is because you are a liar.

[thedoc]

How about this guy? I know he didn't state directly on this video that he knows that god does not exist, he does state that other related ideas are not true. When I find the video where he, or a co-host, claims to know that God does not exist, I'll post it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZuRn3Hr5mM