Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[Immanuel Can]

Dawkins never said "that Atheism is simply not rational, and that's why he doesn't want to be called that.

It is. It's irrational any way you slice it.
But yeah, he realizes it. Why else do you think he's at pains not to be called it? He doesn't want to discredit himself immediately.

I have already shown you, the term "atheist" was and is still a pejorative term thrown at non-believers.

If it ever was that, it's not now. It's just a descriptive term.

"A + theos" in Greek, negation plus the standard word for God. And ironically, the early Christians were termed "atheists" by their polytheist contemporaries, for not believing in enough "gods." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... rd-harries. So it's a label that has been both applied and misapplied to different kinds of people, including Christians.

Nowadays, it just means somebody who believes there's no God.

You are strawmaning.

Nope.

There are only two possible things: the Atheist is speaking only for himself, or he's trying to say that his disbelief should be obligatory to others. If it's the former, it's weak. If it's the latter, it's devoid of reasons and evidence.

You are always imposing your ideology

Not my ideology...unless you mean that my ideology is "logic."

It's the Atheists' own claims that put them in this untenable position. The same critique could be mounted from any religious person, or equally, from a secular person who can do logic.

Since the term 'atheist' and 'atheism' are such loose terms those people branded therein must be differentiated in term of the different contexts they stand on.

It won't help what you call the positions. You can call them position X and position Y, if you want. Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism is weak. Take your pick. There's no other option.

Point here is, Dawkins is not an atheist and we have to accept his explanation.

If that's so, they he's got no basis to insist that belief in God is a "delusion."

But he does. So he's an "Atheist." He just doesn't want to own up to it.

You just cannot insist "Atheism is irrational" hastily.

I don't: I point it out logically.

Well, he plays both sides on that one. He has to.

When nobody's interrogating him, he allows himself to be called an "Atheist." When he's being pushed, he falls back to "firm agnosticism," just as the video so clearly shows. He wants the strength of the Atheist position, because he knows agnosticism has no implications for other people; but he doesn't want to have to "pay the toll" of having to produce evidence to warrant Atheism, so he slides back to an agnostic retreat.

Whatever other may call him, his official stance is what he had written in the 'God Delusion'

Okay. Let's say so.

Then he's an Atheist: he argues that God is a "delusion," and unless you think he's recommending "delusions," then he's claiming he knows we would be "deluded" to believe in God.

But he still has no evidence for that claim.

There you go again in imposing your ideology

Not at all.

I did not call anything a "delusion": he did. Now he has to ante up his reasoning, and show that God can be proved to be a "delusion."

Point is you are ignorant of the psychology involved in this case.

No. The point is that you are ignorant of Flew's mental state, and won't read his book for fear of being shown wrong.

I've read it. I have it right here. You're wrong.

It is noted Flew depended on the Fine-Tuning Argument aka Argument from Design to justify his Deism.

That's not correct. He had several lines of extremely cogent reasoning.

Read the book, and you'll know.

It is the principle of basic logic, i.e. if the syllogism is valid,

There was no "syllogism." Just a claim with no warrant.

How so?
Reproduced my argument and show how it is not valid?

It wasn't an "argument." It wasn't a "syllogism." If you think it was either, then you obviously don't know what those things are. I can't make it valid for you, because it wasn't valid in the first place. It also wasn't true. It was just gratuitous.

Since you have thrown the book at me, you should have at least present a summary to justify your position.

You say you've read the essay. (You haven't, I'll bet: but you want me to think you have.) But if you have, you know what it says.

I have the book. Give me the page number and the quotation that concerns you, and I'll find where you're reading.

Ask your question. If it's sensible, I'll answer.

If you have not read the book,

I have it right here. And I've read it.

To ask for one page and quotations is ridiculous in this case.

It's reasonable that you provide the quotation you consider worthy of comment.

But you won't: because, I suspect, you've actually read nothing. You just looked up a sketch of the contents. But you've thought about it so little that you can't even pick out a particular point or quotation to question.

If you want to be serious, read Flew's book or the Blackwell guide, instead of just pretending to. I promise you, I have both on hand, and will happily tackle any matter you deem interesting.

If you don't want to be serious, what's the point?

[Immanuel Can]

Agnosticism is a word. It can't say anything.

I'm sure you know I was using it by metonymy, for "agnostics." But let that be.

It doesn't actually matter what we call it. We can call it "bingo" and it will have the same problem, because the problem is inherent to the position.

And that problem is as follows:

Then they need to be asked, "Do you mean you personally lack a belief," or are you trying to tell other people that they ought to?

Further clarification is necessary yes, if someone wants to know more. Of course atheists of both types often explain themselves.

They don't, actually. They can't, because any attempt to explain it exposes the incoherence of Atheism.

Either they mean the claim "there is no God" as a personal confession -- and it's powerless to imply anything for anybody else -- or they mean it as a declaration of what everybody should think -- in which case, they lack the rational warrant for it.

So Atheism is either weak or irrational. It has no other options.

That's why, I suggest, Atheists tend to act like they mean "There IS NO God," until challenged. They need the strength of that claim. They would like to say not just "I personally don't believe in God," but something like "You cannot (logically, rationally, scientifically, or some other way) do so either." They want that power, but aren't up to producing the evidence to warrant it. So they slip back to agnosticism when challenged.

Hey, look I understand the urge to psychologize the enemy,

I'm not psychologizing, actually. I'm just describing their tactics.

You'll see that over and over and over in debates between Atheists and Theists. You can even find it in old conversations here, on this forum.

The Atheist will begin with the "hard" position: "there is no God," or "God is a delusion." Then, when pressed, he'll slide back to, "Well, I just disbelieve in gods," or "I have no personal knowledge or opinion about gods," or some other such "soft" agnostic version. Then, as soon as the heat's off, he'll jump right back to "There's no God."

You don't have to take my word for that. You can see them actually doing it. And Dawkins is an example of that.

[attofishpi]

Not sure what I know then

Don't worry about it, me old mucker; just take a leaf out of Socrates' book. Well, Plato's book but, er, well never mind. Anyway, the story of Socrates and the Oracle of Delphi is one of the first things any diligent philosophy student learns. Basically Socrates' mate Chaerephon asked the Oracle who the wisest man in Greece was. When Socrates was told it was him, he protested that he didn't know anything. Ta-da! Anyone who understands that they don't really know anything is much wiser than the halfwits and nutjobs who claim they do.

Granted. But Socrates was logically incorrect in his statement, humble but wrong.

In the context of this thread, of course there is evidence for god, but if evidence were proof, we wouldn't need courts.

What evidence?

Philosophy of religion is one of the courses I took as part of my bachelors degree, and the evidence that I have seen for god isn't enough for a conviction. It is blindingly obvious that the only people who find the arguments for god compelling are the same ones who already believe in god.

In all my life I have never seen any evidence for a God, apart from the fact of being born into this weird ritual with a man nailed up onto some planks of wood..rather horrifying for any youngster to consider. Rather macabre. Dunno what it was, but even virtue of the fact that I was born into it, made me consider deeper beyond a life where we are born, have kids, work our arse off and drop dead.
Had I been born into a US evangelist pile of superficial shite - in a large auditorium with people in suits and shiny perfect teeth shouting their interpretations of what was clearly a book ASKING TO BE CHALLENGED....rather than a beautifully crafted building of masonry and the sunlight shining through leadlight windows, ya I'd have likely puked my way into non-belief.

The right royal arseholes are the ones who insist the bible is all the proof you need of god's existence, who then in almost the same breath tell us what great arguments are all the ontological, teleological, fine-tuning, microbes with propellors bullshit.

Amen.

I actually went to church last Saturday for the first time in quite some time, I was required to do the confession thing for crossing the line (again) - which meant I had to sit through 30 mins of weirdness - ritual chanting. Had I not been indoctrinated into it as a nipper, it would have been far more confronting. As I did the stand, sit ..oh, we kneel now, oh we stand for this bit etc..inside thinking how dumb humans are, but 'knowing' there is an intelligence behind the MASS, inside at times I had a giggle, and the intelligence would make a comment to me. Eventually it got to the bit where people eat Christ and I was hoping someone as they attempted to get past me in the pew would ask if I was going to partake in 'holy communion' where I could respond "No, I've already eaten."
Anyway, just prior to the breaking of 'bread' - a wafer - the priest insisted as his chant that this bread and wine become from the ACTUAL flesh of Christ!! I found it extremely distasteful (no pun intended) that these people have exaggerated what Christ apparently asked - simply to (at some point - not necessarily every fucking week) 'do this - bread and wine as IF flesh n blood - in memory of me'. So this priest was insistent in his words that IT BECOMES Christs FLESH and BLOOD!! well, maybe that's what it's all about, sucking the MASS from the LIGHT...or Poor ol' Christ trying to chill out on the weekend, maybe watching a football match and oooh, there goes another chunk of his actual being, surely there is nothing left of him. Basically, the Church, even the ones of real stone and antiquity, distort everything.
I walked out a couple of years ago when I thought I'd see how the Easter service was, when a priest insisted that Mary was blessed to mother Christ -like she was lucky - what a fucking outrage!! No mother would want to have to witness that of her son.
Everyone, atheist and theist are so short of sight. (in certain ways), me too but I will not agree that I don't know that at the least there IS an intelligence capable of constructing the reality that we perceive. (beyond us of our own minds)

[bahman]

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A
Going to watch that one?

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].
The point is Dawkins is a scientist and the Scientific Framework and System cannot ensure 100% certainty else one who claim for 100% certainty cannot qualify as a scientist.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.
Their concession in this case is merely showing their humility in not playing God in claiming absolute certainty.
Dawkins had also claimed despite his concession he implied on a personal basis outside his scientific constraint, God is an impossibility.

It is very common to ask for "one best argument to one's claim" but it does not imply that one's best argument would be true or real.

The video merely cherry picked without taking the full contexts of Dawkins and Hitchen's position towards theism.

Meanwhile IC is extending the deception in insisting,
"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there [size]IS[/size] evidence for God" as if it is their categorical view.

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

I don't think that physics can ensure us that God exists or not. You need metaphysics. I have an argument against the existence of God: Any action including the act of creation needs time. Time is a part of creation. That means that time is needed to create time. This is a regress. Regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

[seeds]

I don't think that physics can ensure us that God exists or not. You need metaphysics. I have an argument against the existence of God: Any action including the act of creation needs time. Time is a part of creation. That means that time is needed to create time. This is a regress. Regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

Well, you are obviously basing your theory against the existence of God on the silly nonsense notion that "time began" at the moment the alleged Big Bang banged.

The truth is that there was a literal eternity of time prior to that moment, as there will indeed be an eternity of time after the universe reaches the proposed thermodynamic equilibrium.
_______

[bahman]

I don't think that physics can ensure us that God exists or not. You need metaphysics. I have an argument against the existence of God: Any action including the act of creation needs time. Time is a part of creation. That means that time is needed to create time. This is a regress. Regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

Well, you are obviously basing your theory against the existence of God on the silly nonsense notion that "time began" at the moment the alleged Big Bang banged.

The truth is that there was a literal eternity of time prior to that moment, as there will indeed be an eternity of time after the universe reaches the proposed thermodynamic equilibrium.
_______

Eternity is another sort of regress.

[Iwannaplato]

I'm sure you know I was using it by metonymy, for "agnostics." But let that be.

Of course, but saying it that may made it easier to make your point or think your point was correct and I didn't think it was. So, I started right at the base.
It doesn't actually matter what we call it. We can call it "bingo" and it will have the same problem, because the problem is inherent to the position.

And that problem is as follows:

Then they need to be asked, "Do you mean you personally lack a belief," or are you trying to tell other people that they ought to?

Further clarification is necessary yes, if someone wants to know more. Of course atheists of both types often explain themselves.

They don't, actually.

I can talk from my experience. I have seen many atheists online in philosophy forums say, when asked about their atheism or at their own initiative, that there is no God. Some, like VA here, will state that they consider it very unlikely. Then there are atheists who say they lack the believe. Perhaps you have had other experiences, but I find that odd, since I haven't had to chase down individual atheists at all to elicit this. Asking them, if they haven't already made it clear, is all I have needed to do.

They can't, because any attempt to explain it exposes the incoherence of Atheism.

Well, they do, even if you are correct on this point.

Either they mean the claim "there is no God" as a personal confession -- and it's powerless to imply anything for anybody else

That's bizzarre. Could you link me to or name someone here who is an atheist who says 'there is no God' and that this is just a personal confession. I have seen many many atheists who say they do not believe there is a God, but do not say there is no God. But this kind of idiocy I have not seen. I mean, there are idiots, so it may happen. So please put me give me the name of someone here or on another forum who makes those two assertions. There is no God but this is a mere personal assertion.

-- or they mean it as a declaration of what everybody should think -- in which case, they lack the rational warrant for it.

So Atheism is either weak or irrational. It has no other options.

I don't think saying I don't believe in X is weak. It could be a simple statement of fact.

That's why, I suggest, Atheists tend to act like they mean "There IS NO God," until challenged. They need the strength of that claim. They would like to say not just "I personally don't believe in God," but something like "You cannot (logically, rationally, scientifically, or some other way) do so either." They want that power, but aren't up to producing the evidence to warrant it. So they slip back to agnosticism when challenged.

Hey, look I understand the urge to psychologize the enemy,

I'm not psychologizing, actually. I'm just describing their tactics.

Sigh. 'They need the strength of that claim' 'They want that power'

[seeds]

I don't think that physics can ensure us that God exists or not. You need metaphysics. I have an argument against the existence of God: Any action including the act of creation needs time. Time is a part of creation. That means that time is needed to create time. This is a regress. Regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

Well, you are obviously basing your theory against the existence of God on the silly nonsense notion that "time began" at the moment the alleged Big Bang banged.

The truth is that there was a literal eternity of time prior to that moment, as there will indeed be an eternity of time after the universe reaches the proposed thermodynamic equilibrium.
_______

Eternity is another sort of regress.

So what.

The existence of the eternity that preceded the creation of this universe simply means that consciousness (mind) has literally had an infinite amount of time to evolve to the point where the creation of a universe is (in the immortal words of the late great Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden) "...a mere bag of shells..." to a super-evolved Being.
_______

[bahman]

Well, you are obviously basing your theory against the existence of God on the silly nonsense notion that "time began" at the moment the alleged Big Bang banged.

The truth is that there was a literal eternity of time prior to that moment, as there will indeed be an eternity of time after the universe reaches the proposed thermodynamic equilibrium.
_______

Eternity is another sort of regress.

So what.

The existence of the eternity that preceded the creation of this universe simply means that consciousness (mind) has literally had an infinite amount of time to evolve to the point where the creation of a universe is (in the immortal words of the late great Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden) "...a mere bag of shells..." to a super-evolved Being.
_______

Infinity by definition is a quantity that cannot be reached! Regress is bigger than any infinity.

[Immanuel Can]

I can talk from my experience. I have seen many atheists online in philosophy forums say, when asked about their atheism or at their own initiative, that there is no God.

That's Atheism.

Some, like VA here, will state that they consider it very unlikely.

What Dawkins calls, "Firm Agnosticism."

Then there are atheists who say they lack the believe.

I've heard some of them call this "Apatheism." But it's a pointless declaration, since it only means, "I don't wanna think about it."

Perhaps you have had other experiences, but I find that odd, since I haven't had to chase down individual atheists at all to elicit this.

You haven't. I have.

Either they mean the claim "there is no God" as a personal confession -- and it's powerless to imply anything for anybody else

That's bizzarre.

No, it's very ordinary.

It's like saying, "I don't like vanilla ice cream." Such a claim has zero implications for anybody but the person stating it. Maybe you DO lkike vanilla ice cream. The speaker isn't even implying you can't. So if all one says is, "I don't believe in God," the answer is, "Gee...too bad for you." But if he means to add, "...and you shouldn't, either," then he owes reasons: and Atheism lacks sufficient means to do that.

We might add, of course, that to hear somebody who calls himself an "Atheist" or even a "Firm Agnostic" say, "I don't believe in God" is completely unsurprising, as well. It still doesn't mean everybody else can't. It doesn't even go so far as to give us any reason to think that they self-declared Atheist or Firm Agnostic won't discover something that will change his mind in the next five minutes. It just means, "At this moment, I and only I happen to disbelieve / lack belief in God."

The right answer?

"So what?"

That's about as weak a situation as one could imagine.

Could you link me to or name someone here who is an atheist who says 'there is no God' and that this is just a personal confession.

Now you've got the point!

Dawkins (for example) wants to say BOTH "God is a delusion," AND "I'm only a 'firm agnostic' about God." Those are mutually contradictory claims. And I think he's smart enough to realize they are...but he still has to make both, because the former is non-evidentiary and vulnerable, and the latter is weak and devoid of implication for others.

So Atheism is either weak or irrational. It has no other options.

I don't think saying I don't believe in X is weak. It could be a simple statement of fact.

Yes, but then it's like "I don't like vanilla ice cream." The answer is, "Oh...sad for you." It has no further implications for anybody but the speaker himself. He can't use it to say, "...and you should hate vanilla ice cream too," because the next question is going to be "Why?" and he has nothing but his own personal experience (or lack thereof, rather) from which to speak.

[seeds]

Eternity is another sort of regress.

So what.

The existence of the eternity that preceded the creation of this universe simply means that consciousness (mind) has literally had an infinite amount of time to evolve to the point where the creation of a universe is (in the immortal words of the late great Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden) "...a mere bag of shells..." to a super-evolved Being.
_______

Infinity by definition is a quantity that cannot be reached! Regress is bigger than any infinity.

Horse crap!!!



None of which works as an irrefutable theory as to why a Conscious Creator of this universe cannot exist.
_______

[bahman]

So what.

The existence of the eternity that preceded the creation of this universe simply means that consciousness (mind) has literally had an infinite amount of time to evolve to the point where the creation of a universe is (in the immortal words of the late great Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden) "...a mere bag of shells..." to a super-evolved Being.
_______

Infinity by definition is a quantity that cannot be reached! Regress is bigger than any infinity.

Horse crap!!!



None of which works as an irrefutable theory as to why a Conscious Creator of this universe cannot exist.
_______

That is not a good way to proceed when you cannot make any point.

[seeds]

Infinity by definition is a quantity that cannot be reached! Regress is bigger than any infinity.

Horse crap!!!



None of which works as an irrefutable theory as to why a Conscious Creator of this universe cannot exist.
_______

That is not a good way to proceed when you cannot make any point.

How much more succinct can a point be?

You are spouting horse crap and I'm simply providing visual aids.

Lighten up. It's just for funzies.
_______

[Iwannaplato]

That's Atheism.

That was one form of atheism. There are a couple of atheisms and a couple of agnosticisms.

I've heard some of them call this "Apatheism." But it's a pointless declaration, since it only means, "I don't wanna think about it."

More mindreading. Perhaps that's what it means to those who call it apatheism, but not to others.

No, it's very ordinary.

It's like saying, "I don't like vanilla ice cream." Such a claim has zero implications for anybody but the person stating it. Maybe you DO lkike vanilla ice cream. The speaker isn't even implying you can't. So if all one says is, "I don't believe in God," the answer is, "Gee...too bad for you." But if he means to add, "...and you shouldn't, either," then he owes reasons: and Atheism lacks sufficient means to do that.

First of all it doesn't matter in the context of this discussion if it has implications for others. We are talking about how people use these terms. And then it could be a pertinent part of a philosophical discussion if they add, and I haven't encountered a good reason to believe yet as part of a request for one. But that's beyond the scope of what we are discussing. You asked or stated something about the terms atheism and agnosticism.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

I have answered that question and provided a link to a more complete answer. I explained how it is not the same as agnosticism, though some people might qualify for both categories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
These terms are used a few different ways.

Could you link me to or name someone here who is an atheist who says 'there is no God' and that this is just a personal confession.

Now you've got the point!

What point did that indicate I got?

Dawkins (for example) wants to say BOTH "God is a delusion," AND "I'm only a 'firm agnostic' about God." Those are mutually contradictory claims. And I think he's smart enough to realize they are...but he still has to make both, because the former is non-evidentiary and vulnerable, and the latter is weak and devoid of implication for others.

I asked for someone here. Someone here who asserts that there is no God but this is a personal confession. I'd like to interact with someone who asserts the first and then describes it as merely personal.

It would be the equivalent of saying 'There are no Arabs' but I am not making a claim that is relevant to anyone else's belief.

So Atheism is either weak or irrational. It has no other options.

I don't think saying I don't believe in X is weak. It could be a simple statement of fact.

Yes, but then it's like "I don't like vanilla ice cream." The answer is, "Oh...sad for you." It has no further implications for anybody but the speaker himself. He can't use it to say, "...and you should hate vanilla ice cream too," because the next question is going to be "Why?" and he has nothing but his own personal experience (or lack thereof, rather) from which to speak.

None of which makes it weak. Are you weak if you don't believe in Vishnu but you do in the Christian God? Are you weak because you don't believe in ghosts or alien abductions?

Now you've gone off connecting this to an issue of taste. Well, it's not weak to not like vanilla ice cream. Are the strongest people the ones who believe in the most deities or like the most flavors of ice cream?

[Immanuel Can]

That's Atheism.

That was one form of atheism. There are a couple of atheisms and a couple of agnosticisms.

You clearly have your own special nomenclature. And that's allowed, if you stipulate as to what your definition is, precisely.

Likewise, I'll happily stipulate what I mean. Whenver I write "Atheist," I mean somebody who says, "No gods," or any variety of that. Whenever I say "agnostic," I mean somebody who says, "There may or may not be a God," regardless of the probability estimate they assign to their uncertainty.

So it's very simple: I prefer to go with the analytical meaning of the words. "A-theism" is "no-God" ism, and "agnosticism" is "I don't know for sure" ism.

You can count on that being how I'll speak going forward, so we can't misunderstand one another.

I've heard some of them call this "Apatheism." But it's a pointless declaration, since it only means, "I don't wanna think about it."

More mindreading.

No. It's what they say they think. Or rather, that they don't think.

No, it's very ordinary.

It's like saying, "I don't like vanilla ice cream." Such a claim has zero implications for anybody but the person stating it. Maybe you DO lkike vanilla ice cream. The speaker isn't even implying you can't. So if all one says is, "I don't believe in God," the answer is, "Gee...too bad for you." But if he means to add, "...and you shouldn't, either," then he owes reasons: and Atheism lacks sufficient means to do that.

First of all it doesn't matter in the context of this discussion if it has implications for others.

It matters very much to Dawkins et al. They are very much wanting to convince everybody that God is a "delusion," and hence that no rational person should believe in God.

If their disbelief has no implications for others, then they're out of luck on that.

Oh?

So you think one can be an "Atheist," and believe God may exist?

How is that different from agnosticism? Help me out, here.

I have answered that question

Not really. Your answers have been equivocal.

But if you want to stipulate your own definitions now, go ahead. It will make things confusing for any other readers, but you can do that.

Could you link me to or name someone here who is an atheist who says 'there is no God' and that this is just a personal confession.

Now you've got the point!

What point did that indicate I got?

You got Dawkins's game.

At least, if you don't understand it now, you should.

Dawkins (for example) wants to say BOTH "God is a delusion," AND "I'm only a 'firm agnostic' about God." Those are mutually contradictory claims. And I think he's smart enough to realize they are...but he still has to make both, because the former is non-evidentiary and vulnerable, and the latter is weak and devoid of implication for others.

I asked for someone here.

Oh "here," as in on the PN forum?

It was probably six years ago when I started here, and it was one of the first debates I ever had. But it's come up several times since. Here are a few:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=19198&p=259742&hil ... od#p259742
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11964&p=153244&hil ... od#p153244
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=3561&p=291798&hili ... od#p291798

It would be the equivalent of saying 'There are no Arabs' but I am not making a claim that is relevant to anyone else's belief.

Wait: are you saying they are saying "There is no God," like "There are no Arabs"? Are you drawing that parallel?

But if you're saying that, you're agreeing with my definition of Atheism. You've just conceded it.

However, it does not matter whether or not they IMAGINE it has any relevancy to anybody else: it just doesn't, logically. My personal preferences, or yours, are not obligatory for anybody else. If I don't like vanilla, it never implies you can't.

So Atheism is either weak or irrational. It has no other options.

I don't think saying I don't believe in X is weak. It could be a simple statement of fact.

Yes, but then it's like "I don't like vanilla ice cream." The answer is, "Oh...sad for you." It has no further implications for anybody but the speaker himself. He can't use it to say, "...and you should hate vanilla ice cream too," because the next question is going to be "Why?" and he has nothing but his own personal experience (or lack thereof, rather) from which to speak.

None of which makes it weak.

Sure it does. It's weak in that it ought not to convince anybody else of anything at all.

Yet to convince others is exactly what Dawkins et al. are trying to do. They want people to belief faith is a "delusion."

So they're failures, logically speaking. Their arguments lack gravity or evidence. Nobody needs to take them seriously at all.