Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it?

[paarsurrey1]

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it, please?

“How can the New Atheists employ evidentialist principles to argue that religious belief is irrational if they are unwilling to apply those same principles to atheism?�
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

Michael Antony also repudiates other usual non-arguments of Atheism:

1. Atheism Isn’t A Belief
2. You Can’t Prove A Negative like “God doesn’t exist�
3. The Burden of Proof Is On The Believer
4. Ockham’s Razor
5. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

Antony’s conclusion:
“The five ways which atheists sometimes claim exempt themselves from providing evidence of their belief all fail. Unless they make no statements about God at all, they have as much a requirement to support their statements with evidence as anyone else does�

Regards
____________
Dr Michael V. Antony
Michael Antony is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. He is writing a book on how to approach the question of whether there is a divine reality, and what it might be like.
“Where’s The Evidence?�
Michael Antony argues that the New Atheists miss the mark.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/78/Wheres_The_Evidence

[paarsurrey1]

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it?

As soon as the Believers and Atheism people go into a discussion/debate the Atheism people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism. Isn’t it, please?

Regards

[Bust Nak]

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it, please?

No, for the following 5 reasons.

1. Atheism Isn’t A Belief
2. You Can’t Prove A Negative like “God doesn’t exist�
3. The Burden of Proof Is On The Believer
4. Ockham’s Razor
5. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

When you challenge someone, it's best not to include the counter arguments in your post.

people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism. Isn’t it, please?

Nah, that's the true strength of atheism - it's just so easy to defend as a position, with the added bonus of making up fun analogies to unfalsifiable deities.

[Divine Insight]

1. Atheism Isn’t A Belief

That is correct. Atheism is NOT the belief that there is not God.

That would be Secular Materialism.

2. You Can’t Prove A Negative like “God doesn’t exist�

First off, it's totally false that we can't prove a negative. Mathematicians prove the non-existence of mathematical objects all the time. Most popular example is the proof that there cannot be a rational solution to the square root of 2. That's a proof of the non-existence of something. (i.e. proving a negative.)

I agree that it's impossible to disprove an undefined abstract concept of "God" in the most general philosophical sense.

However proving the non-existence of the Biblical God is as easy as proving the non-existence of a rational solution to the square root of 2.

3. The Burden of Proof Is On The Believer

The Burden of Proof is on the person claiming to KNOW something.

A person who claims to know that a God is real needs to prove their claim if they expect it to be accepted. So the Burden of Proof is on them.

A person who claims that secular materialism is the true nature of reality must also prove their claim if they expect it to be accepted. So the Burden of Proof is on them for that claim too.

However, an atheists is simply a person who sees no reason to accept any claims to know the truth of reality. And therefore they aren't even making a claim. Therefore they have nothing to prove.

4. Ockham’s Razor

It's actually Occam's Razor. And I agree that Occam's Razor doesn't work in arguments for a God. The reason being that Occam's Razor actually says that if we have two or more "Theories" that explain something, then the least complicated theory that satisfies the explanation should be accepted until it can be shown that something MORE is actually needed.

In the case of whether or not there was a sentient intelligent creator of the universe we cannot apply Occam's Razor because even hypothesizing an intelligent creator doesn't explain anything. Therefore it's not a valid "Theory".

A "Theory" is an EXPLANATION, not an incomprehensible incoherent guess.

5. Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

In some cases this is indeed true.

EXAMPLE: Someone tells me my house has burned to the ground. I rush home and see my house still standing in perfect condition. There is an "absence of evidence" that the house had burned to the ground. In this case, the "absence of evidence" is indeed "evidence of absence". (i.e. there was no fire and my house didn't burn to the ground)

BIBLICAL EXAMPLE: The Bible claims that there was a worldwide flood that drowned out the vast majority of humans existing at that time. However, there is no evidence that any such flood occurred. In fact, there actually exists plenty of geological and genetic evidence that no such flood could have occurred (i.e. Like me coming home to see my house still standing in the previous example). Therefore in this case, the "absence of evidence" for this global flood is indeed "evidence of absence" that it had ever occurred.

Antony’s conclusion:
“The five ways which atheists sometimes claim exempt themselves from providing evidence of their belief all fail. Unless they make no statements about God at all, they have as much a requirement to support their statements with evidence as anyone else does�

It's true that if an atheist makes any statements about a "God" at all, then they do have a burden of proof to back up their statements with evidence.

I do that all the time.

As outlined above. I can prove the non-existence of the Biblical God. That's a specific God mythology that is well documented.

I can prove there was no global flood that drowned out the bulk of humanity during a flood described by the Bible.

Can I prove there is no God at all? No. And neither do I make that claim. In fact, I can't even disprove the Greek God of Zeus. This is because no one ever said that Zeus is trustworthy, righteous, or moral. Therefore Zeus could be purposefully hiding the evidence of his existence from us. The Biblical God does not have the luxury of being able to do that because he's not permitted to be untrustworthy, unrighteous, or immoral.

I also cannot disprove the God of Buddhism. And so I don't claim to.

I also cannot disprove the Mood Goddess of Wicca. Although that can depend on who's defining her.

Of course, this doesn't mean that Zeus, Buddhism, or Wicca are true. It simply means that they haven't backed themselves into a corner where they can be proven false like the Hebrews did with their Yahweh.

[Tcg]

[Replying to paarsurrey1]

Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. The only way one could disprove atheism would be to prove that everyone believes in god/gods.

[Tcg]

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it?

As soon as the Believers and Atheism people go into a discussion/debate the Atheism people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism. Isn’t it, please?

Regards

As an atheist, I have never seen a Tea-Pot flying on my head. I don't believe in Zeus, if I did I'd no longer be an atheist. I've never had an elephant nor a Bigfoot in my garage.

This line argumentation doesn't reveal the hollowness of atheism, but rather the hollowness of this line of argumentation. It is what is known as a straw man argument.

[Furrowed Brow]

As soon as the Believers and Atheism people go into a discussion/debate the Atheism people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism.

Well yes these sort of miss appear regularly in these kinds of debates. The idea is that the failure to believe in xxxxxx is equivalent to not believing in God. The religious minded person usually retorts there is not an equivalence or that the comparison is insulting.

It is unclear why you think this argument strategy means Atheism is hollow. The problem is the religious person is often unable to show why these kinds of comparison are not applicable.

Assuming you do not believe in Zeus we are probably not very far apart. I do not believe in Zeus for many reasons likely not dissimilar for reasons you do not believe in Zeus. But maybe you have your own reasons I do not understand.

I am going to start another thread to ask this question.

[Justin108]

Evidentialism disapproves Atheism. Does it?

As soon as the Believers and Atheism people go into a discussion/debate the Atheism people see a Tea-Pot flying on their head or they start believing in Zeus or the like or suddenly an elephant intrudes in their garage or a Bigfoot , that exposes the hollowness of Atheism. Isn’t it, please?

Regards

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 7 by Furrowed Brow]

I am going to start another thread to ask this question.

Did one start the thread, please?
Regards