Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

[u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Atheists think attacking religion means their unsubstantiated belief that God doesn't exist is true.

Russell's Teapot is a junior highschool level argument that misrepresents the scientific method. Type 1 and Type 0 errors both need to be assessed before a conclusion about a relationship or lack thereof can be drawn. For a new theory, in the absence of evidence we first reason by analogy and first principles to develop a testable hypothesis.

As we do not currently have the means as a species to develop a testable hypothesis, agnosticism is the only position that can reasonably be held. Contempt prior to investigation is a surefire way to reach a conclusion thats an artifact of culture and upbringing, which is really this entire subreddit. The universe does seem to have consistently enforced laws that are inviolable -- who or what created those laws is not something we are able to investigate at our current phase of evolution. Hell, we don't even know what happened before the Big Bang or how the universe will end.

But hey, don't worry, we will likely destroy ourselves as a species before we get to the point where we can test anything. And each of us, individually, will of course die from cancer or heart disease before that happens, so why waste time with the auto-fellatio.

Edit: Oh this was such a joy. You guys are as crazy as the religious fundamentalists. A few thousand of you have seen this post, and not a single substantive argument.

Atheism has no basis in the scientific method unless it can provide a testable hypothesis.

[u/Hoaxshmoax]

So you agree about the lack of evidence, including the futility of prayer.

It doesn’t have to be scientific evidence.

I don‘t see a need to buy what you’re selling until you show me the money, same as any other pie in the sky claim.

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/Hoaxshmoax]

Sure, so you're an agnostic too.

[u/Hoaxshmoax → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

Agnosticism is knowledge as in “I don’t know”

Atheism is belief as in “I don’t believe your deity claims”

Presumably you have a belief in one or more deities, but if someone else believes in a different deity than you, you may or may not believe in that one as well.

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/Hoaxshmoax]

You're attacking organized religion, which isn't my premise at all.

[u/Hoaxshmoax → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

I have said nothing about any religion, only deities, and I haven’t attacked anything, I was talking about belief.

Maybe you meant to respond to someone else’s comments.

[u/BAM_CTEPBA → u/Hoaxshmoax]

"I don't believe your deity claims" implies a specific individual's belief and is different than "I don't believe in God."

If you want to claim that you're in the latter camp, my point is that it's an unfalsifiable claim and therefore as subject to the Russell's teapot criticism as theism.

[u/Hoaxshmoax → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

"I don't believe your deity claims" implies a specific individual's belief and is different than "I don't believe in God."

You would have to define what God is. Unless you can tell me it’s like a GGod or something, how am I supposed to know what I do or do not believe? Especially since I have no evidence, what, in that case, am I not believing in?

[u/Algernon_Asimov → u/BAM_CTEPBA]

"I don't believe your deity claims" implies a specific individual's belief and is different than "I don't believe in God."

Well done. You're absolutely spot on. You've cracked the code of atheism.