Atheism, Theism, Evidence and Justification.

[enaidealukal]

What is the evidence for atheism? Does atheism need any evidence?

It is customary to ask someone for evidence when they've presented a claim or position. Scientists seek evidence to support or discredit competing hypotheses. Investigators look for evidence to incriminate or exonerate a suspect. Why? According to certainly theories in philosophy, evidence is what distinguishes rational belief from irrational belief- according to the view known as "evidentialism", a belief or claim is epistemically justified if and only if it is supported by sufficient evidence. If a belief or claim is supported by sufficient evidence, one is justified in believing or claiming it- it is reasonable. In turn, epistemic justification is (part of) what distinguishes knowledge from mere belief (again, at least according to certain philosophers)-that, and the provision that the belief is true; suppose, for instance, that I guess that it is raining in London, and it turns out that it is. Did I know that it was raining? Clearly not, I was just guessing- my belief was true, but not justified. But suppose I had checked weather.com and saw that it was raining- in that case, I know it is raining; my belief is true, and it is justified (it is held for good reason).

Now, obviously its not unusual to see someone on these forums ask "what is the evidence for God"? Or, "what is the evidence for Christianity?". It is less common to see someone ask what the evidence for atheism is, and when they do, it is probably as common (if not more) to see people respond by saying something like "atheism doesn't need evidence" as it is to see people actually giving any evidence. Atheism is the default position, they will tell you- atheism isn't a claim, they may say. It is a "negative" position. The theist has the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative. And so on. Or so the story often goes. But is this correct?

I'll put the question to the posters before I say what I think (partly because after writing this OP, and a relatively long post on another thread, I need a break)- does atheism need evidence? Does it need to be epistemically justified? If no, why not? If yes, what is the evidence for atheism? Can it be epistemically justified- is atheism reasonable?

[enaidealukal]

Since you indicated you wanted a discussion of proving falsehood;

Proving falsity is done by absence of expected evidence.
Expected evidence is that which reasonably follows from the proposition.
For example, if I say, "There is an elephant in my living room", then I would expect to see it, if I go to the living room (as it would cover a significant portion of the room).
Were it to move, I would expect to hear it.
If I go downstairs and do not see nor hear an elephant, it is reasonable for me to conclude that one is not there.

The issue comes when the supernatural are involved.
If I say that an ellyphant is an invisible, unhearable, untouchable elephant, there are much fewer tests I can perform.
Where I to be told that "it is a supernatural ellyphant", by definition, no tests can be sufficient.
How am I to know that it is not there?

The only argument (other than logical contradiction) that I am aware can be given against such a belief is an argument against the rationality or reasonableness of the belief not the truthfulness or falsity of it. This would be an argument from simplicity or Occam's razor - that it is not reasonable to believe something so unparsimonious.

Though that is itself not often a convincing argument, and it certainly isn't a logically conclusive one against the actual proposition.

(You may be able to argue that the properties are what's important; the object merely being an abstraction; and positing an object described by it's lack of properties is no different to not positing an object at all)

A few relevant and substantial topics here, and you actually make a really good point, but I'm going to table this for the moment until the question of "proving a negative" comes up, which I fully expect to be anytime now.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, you are quite right: "I don't believe you" doesn't require evidence.

A very reasonable response to that might be something along the lines of "How have I failed to convince you?" A thoughtful answer to that question can / should provide information without any demand for contrary evidence (or the foolish "Prove God doesn't exist" statement).

Neither does 'nothing I've seen so far convinces me that there is a god."

A reasonable response: "What would it take to convince you?" When I have been asked something like that my reply is "Probably about the same level of evidence it would take to convince you that one of the other gods is the real one. Would you accept testimonials, opinions, ancient writings, unverifiable stories, and conjectures as convincing evidence?"

However, those atheists who take that one step farther (and some do; some right here on this forum do) and say 'there is no God."....

I agree.

Well now, logically that is a 'positive' claim, and just as I would be expected to provide proof If I said 'there is a God and my idea of Him is the correct one" (without, of course, putting 'I believe in there somewhere') so an atheist claiming that there isn't one should be expected to provide evidence.

Agree 100%.

Now me, if I ever make the claim 'there is a God,' without that 'I believe' in front of it, it's because I simply forgot to type the words. I know better.

Might it be often true that the Atheist also forgot to include "I believe" or "In my opinion"?

I can't prove, empirically, that there is a God...I honestly don't think that 'empirically' is the way one goes about finding that out.

If empirical is defined as:

1) originating in or based on observation or experience, 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory, 3) capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

What does that leave in the non-empirical as a means of "finding out" – since observation, experience and verification are not included?

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as though that leaves non-empirical to be mental processes – belief, imagination, conjecture, emotional or psychological episodes, opinion, stories, testimonials, etc (self or others, ancient or modern) – all strictly personal and highly subjective (meaning "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered").

[mwtech]

I don't know if I would say atheism needs to be justified. If it does, it is only because of the insistence of others that we are wrong and out of self defense and the desire to be treated with respect we are forced to justify our belief to others. Of course if you are going to debate about your position you need to justify it. But as far as need goes, I don't think anything further is requried than I don't believe you because you have given me no reason to. But regardless of whether atheism needs justification I think there is plenty for it.

So do you not think atheism needs to be justified because you disagree with evidentialism- that rational/reasonable beliefs are distinguished from irrational/unreasonable ones, and knowledge distinguished from true belief, on the basis of justification, and justification consists in having sufficient evidence for a belief/proposition/view- or do you agree with evidentialism, and just think that atheism doesn't need to be justified (via) evidence for some other reason?

I think the problem here is our differing definitions of atheism. I realize that you see atheism as the positive assertion that no gods exist. I don't. I see atheism as the lack of belief in Gods, but for all practical purposes excluding implicit atheism. So really I suppose when I say atheists I mean people who remain unconvinced that God(s) exist even after being told they do. I don't think the rejection of that idea requires any more justification than the rejection of the assertion that Santa or the Easter Bunny is real. When I stopped believing in Santa I didn't have to justify not believing to all my friends who still believed. I just told them I don't think it makes any sense and I don't think it's true. They were free to say "yes he is" but that didn't require me to justify my position.

On the other hand, if I am trying to convince someone that their arguments in favor of their god are wrong, I have to justify my claim that they are wrong with a reason for rejection of that individual argument. Whether or not jusitfication is required should be evaluated on a situational basis in my opinion. The overall belief that the arguments for a supposed being are non convincing needs no justification in and of itself.

So on the subject of evidentialism, no I don't think that the non-belief in something requires evidence. For me, the abscence of any evidence supporting the existence of something is all the "evidence" required to continue to not believe in it. The same way my lack of belief in other mythical creatures aren't based on empirical evidence. My complete lack of any influence by these mythical creatures in my observable, physical, mental and emotional life experience leaves me unconvinced that they exist, and by extension convinced that they don't exist. Similarly when someone posits a specific God, like the god of the Bible, the lack of any impact on my life ar in my observable world leaves me convinced that the claims of his existence are false.

[dianaiad]

.

.....lot's of you being agreeable. This is a very good morning!

Now me, if I ever make the claim 'there is a God,' without that 'I believe' in front of it, it's because I simply forgot to type the words. I know better.

Might it be often true that the Atheist also forgot to include "I believe" or "In my opinion"?

Once in awhile? Sure (I can be agreeable too...) but often enough the context makes it quite clear that 'I believe' doesn't 'go' there.

I can't prove, empirically, that there is a God...I honestly don't think that 'empirically' is the way one goes about finding that out.

If empirical is defined as:

1) originating in or based on observation or experience, 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory, 3) capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

The problem with the above definition, in regard to theism, is that the observation of divine events and information includes a sense that science eschews; emotion--which is an extremely subjective. As well, while my own belief system has an experiment all laid out for someone to perform, the parameters of it are so...squishy? Ok, 'squishy' works. Squishy.

"Read," "Ponder (think about)" and "pray." Simple enough, but each step requires so much personal input and effort--input and effort that are utterly personal and subjective that the parameters of the experiment are far too complicated for anybody else to repeat exactly.

.....and then there is that 'emotion' thing that must be employed in religion, and is supposed to be ignored when dealing with anything the scientific method was designed to examine.

But religion, like non-religious philosophies, deal with human behavior and motives. Emotion IS the primary sense to be used, in all of 'em. Consider: why is it that stealing from someone is considered to be wrong?

True, you can go back and examine the harm stealing would do to society and one's self, eventually: if it is permissible for you to steal from someone else, then it becomes permissible for someone else to steal from you, thus causing an ultimate distancing and distrust of people for one another; this limits cooperation and mutual defense against outside forces, making the culture weak, unstable, and very likely to fall apart, causing the individuals within it to be vulnerable.

But nobody starts thinking along those lines when they are tempted. They simply think: I can't steal here, because it's wrong. I will hurt him if I steal from him.

You can go BACK and examine things, but at the time? It's emotion. Morals and ethics are emotion-based. It's how we work as humans. Yes, I absolutely understand, and agree, that emotion has no place in the scientific method when one is trying to figure out how old a rock is, or how high a building is, or how to raise better wheat.

But in religion and other moral and ethical systems? I contend that emotion is the most important aspect.

What does that leave in the non-empirical as a means of "finding out" – since observation, experience and verification are not included?

It is...but when you include emotion, observation, experience and verification become considerably more complicated and individual.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as though that leaves non-empirical to be mental processes – belief, imagination, conjecture, emotional or psychological episodes, opinion, stories, testimonials, etc (self or others, ancient or modern) – all strictly personal and highly subjective (meaning "belonging to, proceeding from, or relating to the mind of the thinking subject and not the nature of the object being considered").

yep.

The difference between us, Zzyzx, is that I don't consider that to be a bad thing.

[wiploc]

You don't need evidence to support I-don't-have-an-opinion.

That depends- if "I don't have an opinion" means you're aware of the proposition or position in question (theism), and are suspending judgment (for whatever reason), then yes, you need evidence for that position to be justified, and thus reasonable. If you don't have an opinion because, for instance, you're an infant or person from a culture with no god-concepts, then you are not adopting any position or doxatic attitude towards theism, and there isn't anything to justify.

I've read the above paragraph, and I don't get it. I've read it twice, plus I've read variants of it higher in this thread (or the other thread) and I am not persuaded. I'm like the seven year old girl whose parents told her about Jesus, and she said, "Why should I believe that?"

Atheism is not a belief or a claim. Theism is, however. How about you present your case and let us see whether it is epistemically justified?

You mistake me. I'm an atheist.

Noted.

If you are going to be involved, its basic courtesy to abide by the parameters of discussion, including the terminology that is specified.

Pot, meet kettle.

Atheism includes weak atheism. Weak atheism is a lack of belief either way. Lack of belief doesn't need justification in the absence of a persuasive reason to have a belief.

Part of this is correct; the weak atheist who lacks theistic belief, not as a cognitive or reasoned position, but through lack of acquaintence with theism, has nothing to justify.

Implicit atheism.

They do not have any sort of doxatic attitude towards theism.

Agreed.

But the weak atheist who lacks theistic belief, as a cognitive move, because they're familiar with theism and, for one reason or another, choose to not adopt it, have taken a cognitive position with respect to theism. A position that, if not held on the basis of evidence, is not epistemically justified and, according to evidentialism, not reasonable- it is not held on reasons, it is groundless, arbitrary.

I think that declining to form an opinion until you see a reasonable basis for doing so is intellectually respectable. Saying, in effect, "Okay, I've heard of Jesus so now I have to believe in him (and everything else I've heard of) because otherwise I have an unfounded doxastic position," would be doxastically promiscuous. If you don't have a reasonable foundation for a belief, you shouldn't have the belief.

Sure, it's reasonable. The theists present gibberish, self-contradiction, and absurdities, until it's obvious that they don't have a case. If they had good arguments, they wouldn't be using bad arguments. Therefore, it is fair expect that they'll never produce a good argument. They've had thousands of years to get their act together, and they're still using stuff that shouldn't fool a twelve year old.

It is fair to believe that they've got nothing.

So, evidence for atheism consists (at least in part) in the unsoundness of theistic arguments?

Yes.

Suppose I said, "I have exactly twenty-seven dollars in my pocket. I know this because I counted it: there were two dimes and a nickel." The argument undermines the claim. You are less likely to believe my claim after reading my justification.

Recall the Thirteenth Stroke Rule: The thirteenth stroke of a clock is not only itself wrong, but it calls into doubt the accuracy of the other twelve.



Let me share a true story that happened to me:



The Parable of the Pawnbroker

I was a pawnbroker… This guy came into my store, drew a chain out of his right-side pocket, and said, “How much will you give me for this fine gold necklace?�

…I politely looked at his necklace. It was fake. I pointed out to him the chintzy clasp, totally unlike what would be on a necklace of value. But he still insisted that it was real; so I cut the chain with a file, ready to test it with acid. But I didn’t need the acid: the inside was brown, not even gold in color.

The guy dropped the chain in his left pocket. He drew another chain out of his right pocket, and said, “This one’s the real thing.� This one’s the real thing? That was like admitting he’d known all along that the first one was fake.

I showed him that this one didn’t say, “14K,� like real gold would. It said, “14KEP,� meaning it was electroplate. It wasn’t even pretending to be real. But the guy still insisted it was real. So I cut it with my file, and showed him it was another fake.

Can you guess what he did then? He dropped it into his left pocket, pulled a third chain from his right, and told me that this one was real. I was happy to file this one too, ruin it, so he couldn’t try to fool anyone else.

He pulled out a fourth chain. He said it was real. I showed him that it wasn’t.

…First pattern: When this guy said a chain was real, that didn’t carry any weight. His apparent sincerity was an act or a pathology, not an indication of actual truthfulness. His saying something was legitimate didn’t make it legitimate, didn’t even increase the likelihood that it was legitimate.

Second pattern: This guy’s chains were fake. I had yet to examine his [next] chain, but I already believed it was fake.

I was willing to be surprised; if the chain turned out to be real, I would have accepted that. But I believed it was fake. And that was a justified belief, reasonable in the circumstances.

This story is analogous with my experience with Christianity. Somebody will tell me that the ontological argument is solid gold proof of the existence of Jehovah. I point out that it is patently absurd, and he pulls out another argument.

He doesn’t blush or backpedal. He makes no apology for having indiscriminately swallowed a lie and repeated it as a truth. He doesn’t tell his friends, “Hey, don’t be using this argument anymore.� No, he just tells me that the modal argument for necessary greatness is absolute proof of god’s existence. When I point out that this argument is no stronger than its opposite, the modal argument for the nonexistence of necessary greatness, what does he do? Is he taken aback? Does he say he’d better rethink whether his god really exists? Of course not. He pulls out another argument, and says, with all the sincerity of a seller of fake chains, “This one’s the real thing.�

--- http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=230

So, yes, the badness of the arguments they use is evidence that they don't have any good arguments. It's a kind of a Gresham's law of argumentation: Good arguments drive bad arguments out of circulation. If Christians had good arguments, they would use them. They in fact rely exclusively on bad arguments, therefore we are confident that they have no good arguments.

And if even the theists don't know of any good reason to believe in gods, then it is fair to form the expectation that I'm not likely to discover a good reason.

Best, then, for me to remain in the non-theist category.

The guy pulled seven chains out of his pocket that day. You won't be surprised to learn that the seventh was as fake as the first.

So everybody has the burden of proof on every topic? That's going to be hard to sell.

Everybody has the burden of proof anytime they make a claim or position- "burden of proof" is something which exists in debates, discussions. It doesn't pertain outside of that. And it won't be hard to sell, this is just how burden of proof works.

You claim that I have the burden of proof, so it is my responsibility to either believe you or come up with a principled refutation? I don't get to just say, "I'm not persuaded"?

I'm not persuaded.

You don't need evidence to reject an argument that hasn't been presented.

"Evidence" construed fairly broadly- but yes, rejecting an argument that hasn't been presented would be every bit as arbitrary and unreasonable as accepting an argument that hasn't been presented. If it hasn't been presented, how do you have any reasonable basis for rejecting or accepting it at all?

If it hasn't been presented, I have no basis for accepting it. Therefore, the only reasonable move is to not assume it is persuasive. You can call that an unreasonable rejection if you want, but it is the right thing to do.

Don't hide behind epistemic slyness like you accuse the atheists of doing. Tell us what your case is. If you've got a case, you can make converts. If your case is hollow, we can disabuse you. But there's no point in making us guess what your case for theism is.

I myself am an atheist, and this thread is not concerned with making a case for or against theism,

Hence the title, right?

except and unless it is part of evidence for atheism- which is the topic of this thread.

It would be easy to make a thread about that. I'll do it for you if you'd like.

Or you can quit baiting people about terminology, and we can discuss the topic you claim to want to discuss.

You know what? We're over twenty posts in. Starting that discussion now would be like hijacking the thread. I'll go start a new thread.

[wiploc]

Okay, here's the new thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 575#672575

The title is "Justify the Belief That Gods Do Not Exist."




Off topic: Enaidealukal, I'm happy to work with you if you want an easier clearer way to use quoted material. We can make a new thread for that too.

[enaidealukal]

I've read the above paragraph, and I don't get it. I've read it twice, plus I've read variants of it higher in this thread (or the other thread) and I am not persuaded.

Not getting it and not being persuaded are two different things. The point is that there is an obvious difference between lacking an opinion on X because you've never even heard of X, and lacking an opinion on X because you've heard of X and decided to suspend judgment. The latter is a cognitive move, the adoption of a doxatic attitude towards X.

I'm like the seven year old girl whose parents told her about Jesus, and she said, "Why should I believe that?"

"Why should I believe that" is a question (and a perfectly fair one), not a view or a position. Neither burden of proof nor justification pertain to questions.

Pot, meet kettle.

That doesn't make any sense where you've said it.

I think that declining to form an opinion until you see a reasonable basis for doing so is intellectually respectable.

Sure. Suspension of judgment- a doxatic attitude- is pretty arguably a justified position, when on the basis or for the reason of such a clear lack of available/relevant evidence,

Saying, in effect, "Okay, I've heard of Jesus so now I have to believe in him (and everything else I've heard of)

I'm not sure who you think is saying that. Certainly not me, and that certainly isn't what evidentialism entails. What evidentialism entails, which I'm endorsing (for the time being at least), is that, if one believes in Jesus, or does not believe in Jesus, or suspends judgment either way, ones belief, disbelief, or suspension of judgment is reasonable iff it is justified and justified iff it is based on sufficient evidence/reasons/grounds.

If you don't have a reasonable foundation for a belief, you shouldn't have the belief.

Well, but by the same token- evidentialism- if you don't have a reasonable foundation (basis, evidence, grounds) for a disbelief or suspension of judgment, you shouldn't have the disbelief or suspension of judgment. The point is that whatever cognitive or doxatic position we take is reasonable iff it is justified and justified iff it is based on sufficient evidence or reasons.

Yes.

Suppose I said, "I have exactly twenty-seven dollars in my pocket. I know this because I counted it: there were two dimes and a nickel." The argument undermines the claim. You are less likely to believe my claim after reading my justification.

Recall the Thirteenth Stroke Rule: The thirteenth stroke of a clock is not only itself wrong, but it calls into doubt the accuracy of the other twelve.

The last point is actually a fairly good one; if theistic arguments are all bad, is that evidence that theism is false, or just evidence that there are no good theistic arguments (perhaps because nobody has come up with one yet)? In itself, this would appear to be non-sequitur. Phrased as something like an inductive inference, however, this is at least tenable.

You claim that I have the burden of proof, so it is my responsibility to either believe you or come up with a principled refutation? I don't get to just say, "I'm not persuaded"?

Oh, cute- applying the burden of proof to stating what the burden of proof is. Burden of proof is not what we're talking about. Burden of proof is in some ways equivalent to what we are talking about (epistemic justification), but only roughly. Burden of proof is largely irrelevant here- the only reason I've mentioned it at all is try to help some posters distinguish it from what we are talking about (as well as dispel common misconceptions about the philosophic burden of proof, such as that it only applies to the person making a "positive" claim, i.e NOT the atheist)

If it hasn't been presented, I have no basis for accepting it.

And by the same token, no basis for rejecting it- you haven't seen it yet. Perhaps its completely sound.

Therefore, the only reasonable move is to not assume it is persuasive.

It would appear that the only reasonable move is to suspend ones judgment, seeing as assuming that it either is persuasive or not persuasive, without having any evidence either way, is completely groundless and arbitrary.

You can call that an unreasonable rejection if you want, but it is the right thing to do.

"Right" in what sense?

It would be easy to make a thread about that.

Or you can quit baiting people about terminology

and we can discuss the topic you claim to want to discuss.

Which is what we're doing.

You know what? We're over twenty posts in. Starting that discussion now would be like hijacking the thread. I'll go start a new thread.

I'm not sure what you're thinking here, but it at least appears to be intended in a spirit of helpfulness (however misguided). However, we're doing just fine here- but thanks anywayws.

[enaidealukal]

I think the problem here is our differing definitions of atheism. I realize that you see atheism as the positive assertion that no gods exist.

I've pointed out several times now that I'm willing to include any conscious/knowing rejection of theism, allowing for the time being that there may be a valid distinction between "not believing" and "believing not"- all that I've excluded are those who lack belief in gods due to unfamiliarity with the concept (i.e. as you say, exluding "implicit" atheists only).

So really I suppose when I say atheists I mean people who remain unconvinced that God(s) exist even after being told they do.

We're on the same page.

I don't think the rejection of that idea requires any more justification than the rejection of the assertion that Santa or the Easter Bunny is real.

Well, but why shouldn't the rejection of Santa or the Easter Bunny need to be justified to be reasonable? I mean, we all happen to know that these characters are fictional, but if you didn't know that, and didn't have good reason to think they didn't exist, in what way would rejecting belief in their existence be reasonable? If one doesn't reject it on the basis of some grounds, evidence, or reasons, then this rejection is arbitrary, unreasoned- unreasonable.

So on the subject of evidentialism, no I don't think that the non-belief in something requires evidence. For me, the abscence of any evidence supporting the existence of something is all the "evidence" required to continue to not believe in it.

You're saying two different things here; on the on hand, that you don't think it requires evidence, but on the other that the evidence for rejection/disbelief is the absence of evidence for the claim in question. As it happens, I tend to you agree with you, regarding the second thing you said- with some specific qualifications, which I suspect I'll get to fairly shortly.

The same way my lack of belief in other mythical creatures aren't based on empirical evidence. My complete lack of any influence by these mythical creatures in my observable, physical, mental and emotional life experience leaves me unconvinced that they exist, and by extension convinced that they don't exist. Similarly when someone posits a specific God, like the god of the Bible, the lack of any impact on my life ar in my observable world leaves me convinced that the claims of his existence are false.

I may come back to this as this is relevant to the issue of evidence of absence, and you've got a good point buried in here in need of unpacking.

[wiploc]

Saying, in effect, "Okay, I've heard of Jesus so now I have to believe in him (and everything else I've heard of)

I'm not sure who you think is saying that. Certainly not me ...

Therefore, the only reasonable move is to not assume it is persuasive.

It would appear that the only reasonable move is to suspend ones judgment, seeing as assuming that it either is persuasive or not persuasive, without having any evidence either way, is completely groundless and arbitrary.

Three points:

1. Your phrasing ("epistemic justification" vs. "burden of proof") is better than mine. I may keep saying it my way, since most people do, but I acknowledge that yours has clarity and precision that mine doesn't.

2. I'll probably beg off of this sub-topic (epistemic justification for withholding judgement) since I'm becoming less confident that we even have a disagreement.

3. Your phrasing ("suspend ones judgement") may be clearer than mine ("not assume it is persuasive"). But note that I said "not assume it is persuasive" rather than "assume it is not persuasive".

[mwtech]

I think the problem here is our differing definitions of atheism. I realize that you see atheism as the positive assertion that no gods exist.

I've pointed out several times now that I'm willing to include any conscious/knowing rejection of theism, allowing for the time being that there may be a valid distinction between "not believing" and "believing not"- all that I've excluded are those who lack belief in gods due to unfamiliarity with the concept (i.e. as you say, exluding "implicit" atheists only).

So really I suppose when I say atheists I mean people who remain unconvinced that God(s) exist even after being told they do.

We're on the same page.

I don't think the rejection of that idea requires any more justification than the rejection of the assertion that Santa or the Easter Bunny is real.

Well, but why shouldn't the rejection of Santa or the Easter Bunny need to be justified to be reasonable? I mean, we all happen to know that these characters are fictional, but if you didn't know that, and didn't have good reason to think they didn't exist, in what way would rejecting belief in their existence be reasonable? If one doesn't reject it on the basis of some grounds, evidence, or reasons, then this rejection is arbitrary, unreasoned- unreasonable.

So on the subject of evidentialism, no I don't think that the non-belief in something requires evidence. For me, the abscence of any evidence supporting the existence of something is all the "evidence" required to continue to not believe in it.

You're saying two different things here; on the on hand, that you don't think it requires evidence, but on the other that the evidence for rejection/disbelief is the absence of evidence for the claim in question. As it happens, I tend to you agree with you, regarding the second thing you said- with some specific qualifications, which I suspect I'll get to fairly shortly.

The same way my lack of belief in other mythical creatures aren't based on empirical evidence. My complete lack of any influence by these mythical creatures in my observable, physical, mental and emotional life experience leaves me unconvinced that they exist, and by extension convinced that they don't exist. Similarly when someone posits a specific God, like the god of the Bible, the lack of any impact on my life ar in my observable world leaves me convinced that the claims of his existence are false.

I may come back to this as this is relevant to the issue of evidence of absence, and you've got a good point buried in here in need of unpacking.

Okay I'm starting to see more what your point was all along, and I'm with wiploc. I'm not sure we really disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong here. You are saying that once a person hears about a religious belief, their rejection of that claim requires at least some level of justification, even if that justification is "that claim is unsupported and should not be accepted." But once you get that far, you do have justification for that belief. Then if someone gives you more arguments, the amount of justification required for continued disbelief increases as well. As long as someone knows the claim another is making, and they assess that claim through any sort of cognative process, they are by deciding whether or not that is true justifying that position through whatever leads them to that conclusion. Therefore, any decision you come to regarding religion, whether it be theism or atheism (strong or weak) some form of justification is required. If this is what you are saying then ignore everything I said previously. I agree with you. I just wasn't looking at it this way before.