Honestly, why do so many people pride themselves on their utter inabilty to grasp basic epistemology?

You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You have hitherto not defined which epistemilogical stance of atheism you are referring to, strong or weak.

So, you, having no idea what you are talking about, have no idea what the terms strong and weak atheist mean, so I shall introduce you to them.

A weak atheist makes a negative claim I do not believe that God exists. A weak atheist holds that there is no evidence for God and proofs of God (cosmology, design etc) are invalid, hence there is no reason to accept God without evidence. In this case, the weak atheist is making a valid negative claim. This is cogent but non-binding, meaning that the weak atheist does not know without doubt that God does not exist, they never claimed that, hence making your claim an invalid non sequitor (the claim that absolute knowledge is required to dismiss the concept of God). this is false because the weak atheist position is that were evidence to come along for God, they would either counter it or abdicate their position. I have neve, ever heard a weak atheist claim they know beyond doubt that God does not exist.

Being a logical proposition, the notion of transcendant intelligence should be testable and hence falsifiable. Having studied both the philosophical schools of rationality and empiricism for a long time, I have become convinced it is neither. Hence, any talk of it is meaningless. I tend to view religious proposition as noncognitivist, anyway, so it is irrelevant.

In epistemology, the burden of proof rests on the claimant at all times. Hence, unless evidence is presented for God, only the atheist is operating within their epistemic rights

As of yet, you have hitherto not justified your assertion that "atheism" is a belief, nor have you made reference to which philosophical stance you are referring to (weak atheism, otherwise known as agnostic atheism, or strong atheism, otherwise known as deductive atheism). Regarding the deductive atheist position, there are multiple deductive arguments against theistic propositions. I have written several myself. Like this one:

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

You will note that I said:

Your argument commits the positive version of the argumentum ad ignoratium. The fact that God cannot be disproved is irrelevant. Positive proof of X does not depend on X not having been falsified. Otherwise, any proposition could be defended on grounds that it has hitherto not been falsified!

There is a subtle difference between saying that an argument has not been falsified and that it cannot be falsified. The first is invalid as a method of proving X. The second, however, is absolutely critical to burden of proof and epistemic rights. If something cannot be falsified, then it cannot be tested, and then, there cannot ever be evidence of it. If something is unfalsifiable, it is untestable, and if something is untestable, then there is no epistemic rights for saying it exists (the only exception to this is axioms, since they can be defended by retortion). However, this, again, is not grounds for saying that X does not exist. Strong atheism cannot be defended via the unfalsifiability of God, only by the creation of a deductive argument against God (to which, of course, any strong atheist worth his salt would reply “no shit”).

Weak atheists would hence concur that the inherent inabilty to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of a deity would be impossible, hence adopting apathism, which means you are strawmanning their position and hence should not be so ignorant.

A strong atheist would disagree and say that God can be disproved, or at least, shown to be absurdly improbable. Such arguments are called Deductive Arguments Against God. I have written several myself. Like the link I provided.

And educate yourself in the fallacy you are making please. Start with this:

I never invoke the Bible, So I cannot comment on this.

ad ignorantium and negative proof fallacy and ignoratio eclenchi. Have you EVER consulted a list of logical operators and fallacies before?

This is a foolish epistemic fallacy of negative proof. Why is it so frequently employed? The burden of proof does not rest on the negative claimant, rather the positive claimant. If your implication were true, a proposition could be defended solely on basis that it cannot be disproved! This is absurd. Do you believe in fairies merely because they cannot be disproved? Of course not.

Being a logical proposition, the notion of transcendant intelligence should be testable and hence falsifiable. Having studied both the philosophical schools of rationality and empiricism for a long time, I have become convinced it is neither. Hence, any talk of it is meaningless. I tend to view religious proposition as noncognitivist, anyway, so it is irrelevant.

Not disproved? Surely you can display less ignorance. Everything in that book of fables contradicts all that modern science has to say about the world.

Again, being that you have no understanding of basic logic, please read this:

The Argument from Ignorance and Its Uses and Abuses

You still have hitherto to justify which epistemilogical stance of atheism you are making reference to! If you are making reference to weak atheism, then you sir are a moron with no understanding of basic epistemilogy and epistemic rights. One does not prove a negative claim, it is called the fallacy of negative proof for a reason, and you spit on it with your willfull ignorance.

Of course, if you wish to talk about strong atheism (a much rarer stance) I can point you in the right direction....

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Don't insult me. I rolled off the combined MD/PhD program to go into molecular biology and medical research, and have studied evolution for most of my adult life. Please read this, which, just like everything else here, I took the time to write properly:

Proteomics and Its Applications For Evolutionary Mechanisms--Indisputable Proof of Evolution and Common Descent

Reading the Common Descent- Endogenous Retrovirals and Mitochondrial DNA, A Very Short Page

What?

Smirk. Someone with no formal training is hardly in a position to call anything farfetched.

Perhaps you will read what I wrote. Perhaps not.

Oh, you're back to evolution are you? Making reference to an experiment that was carried out, lets see...120 years ago? Good lord, I'm glad someone is up to date. My article on the other hand, is cutting edge proteomics and proteonomics, graduate level research. Please read it.

Back to your inabilty to distinguish between the various epistemilogical stances of atheism, eh? Well, I hope my insistent efforts have hammered into your tiny brain that weak atheism is not a claim unto itself, so your position is absurd (negative proof fallacy). If you are, again, referring to the position of strong atheism, I would, again, be happy to point you in the right direction:

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Good lord, I never thought I would meet someone who so proudly wore their idiocy and inability to understand epistemilogic so proudly on their sleeve.

Ahem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

and please read this,perhaps your brain might experience some electrical activity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism

Certainly.

All A Posteriori Arguments for the Existence of God Are Intellectually Bankrupt

Clearly we differ greatly on our notion of friendly.

{Mod Edit -- Added BB Code to save readers from horizontal scrolling} 

I've read enough of these in my life to not have to read the body, I've read no more than the title and have two things to say.

1.  Atheism couldn't possibly be the most illogical belief because it's not a belief at all.

2.  http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

A negative claim, is still a claim. If I were to tell you I did not believe in the wind, I would be telling you of a belief. Obviously there is more proof for the wind, but the concept is the same. It is no different, it is a claim you must either put FAITH into, or disprove. Even if you think it means you are simply NOT putting your faith in God, it is still a choice. There is no such thing as a "negative" thought. Simply thoughts that go one way or the other, with, or without proof.

And as you stated, if you saw "enough", which is saying that there is evidence(despite how patheticly little there is), and have failed to show ANY proof for no God, or ever given any evidence for anything that would go towards making a God seem improbable. For you to jump to the conclussion that there is no God, without better proof, takes more faith.

I am personaly an agnostic, but I believe it to be a temporary thing. It is(along with the unproven atheism) the dumbest thing you could ever be. To simply not believe in anything else, because the proof is not outstanding, or even good, is not a good reason to believe in absolutely nothing(which you have to realize is what you belive).

You are agnostic.... but it, along with atheist is the dumbest thing to be.... yet you are still 'agnostic'..... because proof of god is "not outstanding, or even good"..... which isn't sufficient reason to believe in god..... but it is still better to believe in god........

Huh? You are joking right? When you read that back to yourself does it really make sense?

I withhold belief in a god until I have ample evidence to change that position. Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

Oh dear. Please just read up on the links you have been given above. Take the time to understand the difference between atheism and agnotism and why one can be both.

Errr yes.

Nope. Not necessarily. Is not believing in astology a belief system? Is not believing in the loch ness monster beleif system?

Please read the links given above. The link to my essay I gave you will explain the different uses of the word faith and should explain why your reasoning here is erronious.

Don't mention it.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

Trollville here we come....

Before I begin ripping apart the next guy, I must apologize, I wasn't aware that I had four resposnes, and only responded to the last two, before realizing that there were two above it, hence the lack of suffiencient de-bunking in the first two "rebuttles". It was not anything intentional. Now, let me begin.

This is a response to deludedgod. First, a direct statement.

Man, I am sorry, but I cannot understnad how you think. You seem at first to be an intelligent man, but then when I actualy go and start reading you posts, you begin to say that God MUST have a physical mindm otherwise nothing makes sense. Are you aware of what the supernatural is? You mask your poorly thought ideas behind big words to cunfuse the Rube's. Pathetic. Now, on to your actual words.

BULL! Are you THAT dumb? You cannot prove that my fork does not exist. It is INFALLIBLE, does that mean it cannot be proved? No, I have it here, go test it, touch it, lick it. I am not relating my fork to God, so do NOT respond by saying: "you dumb n00b, God cannot be touched or licked, retard". I am simply saying that simply because something is infallible means NOTHING. I CAN be proven. That was the WORST logical jump I have EVER seen. Go dig a deeper hole than the last guy. At least he didn't seem to be gifted with intelligence, you seem to have intelligence, but be using it in the dumbest possible way; ignorantly.

Dear God! First off, I can insult whoever I want. Secondly, I looked and was not impressed. Thirdly, do not take me lightly, I was raised by missionaries and have been attending christian theological classes since I was 12.

You love to prove that people will see what they want to, don't you? I said ANY proof, of ANY kind, not simply evolution. Why does everyone jump to this? Are you completely devoid of abstract thought?

You finaly look in a mirror then huh? I cannot believe you said this, and then reffered me to WIKIPEDIA. WOW! Yeah, you're a real genious.

I cannot believe I wasted so much of my time reading what you wrote. I have never seen so much nothing hidden behind alot of words. I feel tainted now, I cna only hope that you eventualy use to mind to think for YOURSELF.

Later,

Half King of the Hopeless

Okay, I will post this agin, because no one is getting the point. I am simply trying to say that Atheism requiers more faith than most religions. I am asking for either a logical response debating this, or evidence for atheism. I have seen neither as of yet, aside from one guy who's logic seems to say that God goes against the laws of nature, so I will clarify something. If God is supernatural, than by befinition, he iy beyond nature. so no saying that God defies nature. No duh.

If you'd be so kind, flamingfuzzy, please give us your ontology for "supernatural".

flamingfuzzy,

The illogical part is saying that faith is required to lack it.

Atheism is ill-defined with regard to its roots.

A- = without/non

theism = belief/believing in god(s)

Ergo atheism is without belief in god(s).

The 'gnostic' part of this is defined as:

of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.

Essentially adding a- as prefix in this context is:

agnostic is without spiritual knowledge.

The assertion that everyone is agnostic comes from the fact that any spiritual knowledge presented has been anything but knowledge because knowledge implies an intrinsic verifiability with it.

We're not worried about what anyone THINKS they know. It is the beliefs at issue and the lack thereof.

That's why it is 'atheist vs. theist' = belief vs. non-belief

When someone declares 'spiritual knowledge' we are skeptical because as of yet, ALL have failed in the verifiability portion needed for knowledge.

Atheism = The lack of belief in god or gods.

An Atheistic claim: God or gods don't exist = A negative claim.

Therefore, the burden of proof is not on us Atheists, but the Theists who say that a god does exist. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard someone use flawed this argument against Atheism, I would be about 8 dollars richer.

You are correct in some things you say here. Atheists have so far failed to crush religion. Why? Because religous people have emotions! It's hard to think rationally when they have this beautiful thing called "God" in their lives.

Another reason is that we don't have the knowledge to explain certain mysteries left in the universe. Now people have much less rational reasons to believe in God, because we no longer need it to explain the creation of life, the earth and the universe.

You are wrong. God's existence and non-existence is impossible to prove, because there is no evidence. We cannot disprove religion by destroying it. It's a matter of evidence. But if you have real scientific proof that any god exists, bring it on. I would like to know about it.

Okay: your premise is incorrect. By definition, a lack of belief requires no faith at all, so your argument is tanked right there. Lack of knowledge does not require evidential support.

(As an aside, when "no one" understands you there are two options: either everyone around you is literally incapable of understanding you ["you're all idiots!!!"], or you are not clearly articulating your case ["...because bobbada bobbada hoe daddy yanga langa furjeezama bing ying. QED."]. Just because there are two possible explanations does not mean both are equally likely.)

Atheism is the lack of belief in any god: "I do not believe (read: I do not claim the knowledge) that a god exists". It is not a claim to knowledge; it is a statement that the arguments for any god's existence is invalid.

Strong atheism, however, IS a claim to knowledge ("I believe that no god exists".), and is a different thing. To my mind, it's also a less tenable position because claims of non-existence are a lot harder to make than claims of existence. So far, no one has been able to come up with a proof of the non-existence of any god; just that it seems "highly unlikely" that any god exists.

Special pleadings will not get you very far. Either things exist or they do not; no middle ground or extenuating circumstances. Defining something as supernatural automatically means that thing does not exist, period. See posts by todangst and deludedgod, among others, for more information.

Let's try this: some entity is defined as being an omnimax entity. Any omnimax entity is inherently contradictory and therefore, by the law of non-contradiction, cannot exist. Therefore, any entity described as being an omnimax being cannot exist. An entity may exist, but if it does, it is not an omnimax entity.

Atheists don't have to prove a god doesn't exist; atheists can, however, prove the god someone believes in does not exist, usually just by listening to the definition.

What system is that?

Without info logic has nothing to be applied to.

I didn't know people like to research dictionaries.

Well RRS isn't all atheists and we aren't christians so I'm not sure what they do has to do with us.

Theist - god belief

A - without

What do you think anti-theism would mean? Are you aware of strong and weak atheism? Do you know saying the only form of atheism is the strong is called a no true scottsman?

There you go something else to go on.

It all seems wrong to you because you have started on a false premises. So it is you who is “[seeing] anyone who is not using [your] system as wrong or of using flawed logic.”

Re-read what you just said. Not having X is having X. Does this make sense?

Lacking one belief doesn't mean every belief is lacked, but for the most part I'd think most atheists lack beliefs about the supernatural. I fail to see why not believing in the supernatural means no belief can be held in the sense, 'I think X is true'.

Positive claims require evidence to be without faith. In doubting such claims a person would expect to see little to no evidence of the claim.

Bob: There is a blue monkey on the ceiling.

Jon: I don't see a blue monkey so I don't believe in it.

Who has more faith?

Straw man much?

Try again. You are using bad premises and arriving at wrong conclusions. You can do that with logic( F -> F is valid), but why bother?

Dictionaries reflect common usage, not technical meaning. The better way would be to ask: do you take the atheist or strong atheist position? Then again, it's harder to rant about things when you have clear-cut answers to work with...

I am not CHOOSING to not believe; I am unswayed by the arguments presented so far. These two things, no matter how cozy it may make you feel to believe otherwise, are not the same thing. I am assuming the atheist position makes you uncomfortable because it puts you in the position of having to do work to support your claim. Then, looking for support and finding none, you get a bit agitated, so you try to move the goalposts or rephrase the question to eliminate your problem. That's where people have stepped in and given you a flag on the play.

Yes, you unbelievably thick simpleton. The whole point of the excerise was to show that it is impossible for a supernatural being to have a mind. I would know. I poured 12 years of hard labour into the neuroscience and information physics I needed to write those articles. Which you did not read, because you did not click on the links.

And I would ask you kindly to:

-Learn how to spell

-Learn basic syntax and grammar

You will note that my posts are always perfectly articulated and thought out. Your posts, by contrast, appear to have been produced by a large number of monkeys on a large number of typewriters, which, if you read an experiment from UPenn, don't type very much at all, they just hurl excrement at the keyboard. This is precisely what you are doing.

Oh yes, how intelligent and mature. I must say, I really feel like I am debating in the hallowed halls of Oxford now, with the walnut and sherry carts and the debatees in stamped robes.

Certainly I can. This is an empirical claim. If you are making the claim

Object X exists at location Y

then I can test it and falsify it by observation. That is the definition of empericism. Pertaining to the existence or non existence of God, the process is analogous...except of course, that God is not testable, therefore God is also unfalsifiable, and an empirical claim about the world can be neither to be a meaningful claim.

I think the word you are looking for is irrefutable. Anyway, this statement is false. There is no such thing as an inrrefutable emperical claim. Only tautology and axioms can be defended in this way. 

Yes, since the two processes are mutual. Only axiomatic truths can be defended via retortion, as you are attempting to do. 

However, as I pointed out, better than the dichotomy you suggest (you still lack the cranial capacity to understand the strong/weak atheist dichotomy), is a probability continuum. Hence in the article (which you did not read), I made this point. Emperical claims are judged on probability values, not absolute X/Y statements.  

Oh, yes. "I looked and was not impressed". Yeah. That's a real argument. You probably had no idea what half the terminology meant. No. I suppose I'd better capitulate right here. After all, you surely must know my own subject of sixteen years of labour, yes? So, you win by default by the naked and pathetic assertion "I looked and was not impressed".

Real fucking mature. 

Oh, yes. This REALLY gives you the right to comment on evolutionary science, doesn't it? Yes, theological classes. That SURELY means you supersede me in molecular dynamics and biology, evolutionary population mathematics, neuroscience, information physics, microbiology and chemistry, right? Somehow, in a discussion about fields of science, a theological class will not impress me in the slightest.

No, but if you wish to make a claim based on examples, the examples had better be factual.

Even wikipedia is bound to display the truth occasionally, if only accidently. In this case, they are correct where you are too stupid and ignorant to understand that basic epistemology behind the dichotomy of the atheist position, strong and weak. I cannot believe that you have as of yet not used these terms. Being that you have not, you really have no right to comment on the subject, since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about (you refer to them as mutually exclusive positions, which is absurd).

And the fact that you are this indignant that an, "unbelievably thick simpleton" is mature? I have always believe that the more you cuss, the more mature your artgument must be. Go you.

And yes, I looked, and found nothing but alot of words strung together. You want my biggest reason of all for my disbelief in your system? You are trying to define God by what you see around us, by nature. If a God is "supernatural" then he would not be bound by nature. Duh. You cannot look around you, and then use that to judge something you cannot even comprehend.

I am assuming that since you have just made a statement in regards to my own lack of intellect and ignorance, that you have made absolutely sure that what you have said is correct before making that assumtion? Of course not. You judged my behavior, and jumped to a conclussion based on that.

Science? Why are you assuming that science is the greatest proof either way? Or even most of it? Logic is a tool everyone uses, even in science. Theology, the study of God, holds no value to you in a discussion of what..... God? Smart man. You base everything on your precious science, when, if God created science, it would not have to apply to him. Just as if you made a 2 dimensional world, you would not be bound by it's limits, and so you would not be able to use pure science, and the world around you, to figure everything out.

Oh, and as far as my vocabulary goes, I am very sorry for trying to use words the common people actualy understand, instead of rellying solely on the use of big words and empty thoguhts to sway people. And, if you reject what someone says, on the basis of how it is said in and of itself, it is like rejecting a diamond, simply because it is covered in mud, stupidity of the highest sort. And if you cannot accept someone, simply because they have devoted more of their mind to actual thought, instead of in the appearance there-of, then I doubt you will never be happy, and be doomed to lengthy conversations in which nothing is discussed.

"I do not understand scientific terminology" is not a valid argument. I found it perfectly intelligible and understandable, as do all my colleagues.

The fact that you are ignorant of scientific applications is an invalid criticism to make of a paper merely because you cannot understand it.

But this is circuitous logic, since the attributes that God is given by definition (sentience etc) are natural, so it is not me who is attempting to define God as a natural being, it is the theists, who then contradict themselves by insisting that God is a supernatural being. To wit, if you insist upon God having a mind, you are insisting upon God being a natural being (since I have shown that the mental is inherently linked to the physical).

Yes, I am quite sure I am versed in the epistemic vocabulary behind the atheistic positions and the various stances. Your point?

This is a non sequitor.

You invoked evolution. That is science.

Yes, your point?

Your original point pertained to scientific concepts, therefore, yes, theology is useless.

No, I base empirical claims on science, since science is the method of testing such claims. If you had a quarter ounce of grey matter, you would realize this. I also invoke retortive axioms, or tautology, as do you. Everyone bases empirical claims on science. It is unavoidable QED.

This is unfalsifiable and untestable, which makes it a pointless claim to make. Not that it matters, since it again, is circuitous logic, merely a question-begging way of attempting to avoid answering a possible conjecture, that being:

Since we have indisputable evidence of the necessary physicality of sentient beings, how is it possible that a being could be sentient and immaterial.

Your first assertion was that it is supernatural. Circuitous logic, being that you are contradicting yourself by invoking natural properties to a supernatural being. Hence, to claim God created such laws is an inherently absurd reason in a circle chain, since one falls into the very conjecture which one is attempting to solve. The only word for it is sophistry, hence, your only saving grace is to solve the conjecture, instead of dismissing it.

And by the way, you still haven't read it, have you?

I assure you that all terminology I invoked in various articles are not empty, they make perfect sense in their respected fields of endeavor.

Your criticism being: You use big words therefore you are false? Well, I really am impressed with your arguments. If only there was a better way to express sarcasm via the internet.

Why not sign up to be a barrister right now?

Well, it would be rather difficult to accept what one cannot read, wouldn't it? Likewise, if you are sloppy, lazy, cannot even spell or grasp basic syntax, it becomes a painful exercise (more so than usual) to engage in debate with you. Why not learn to speak the language instead of vomiting on it?

The projectionalism found in this comment is stunning. As of yet, I can detect nothing of substance from your posts. Perhaps, however, you will suprise me.

Being that you admitted to not understanding what I said, you don't exactly have any right whatsoever to comment on whether the thoughts within contain any substance.

You are right in the fact that G-d cannot be disproved. The very nature and definition of G-d runs contrary to him being disproved. If G-d were to be true, he would only be able to be defined by the rules that were created to define him. Get it? He is omnipotent, eternal, living on another plane of existance, odorless, invisible, and we as mortals cannot adequately define him. 

We could start with saying that the Old Testament is the word of G-d and is perfect. Now we could go on to prove other religions wrong. But we still need to argue from a religous perspective. That is why so many arguements come from finding inconsistancies in the Bible, it is the only source of information about G-d that we have.

You say that it is not enough to denounce a faith? You have to be kidding me? If the Christian bible is true, then it denounces Islam, Buddism, and Hindi! If the Old Testament is true, it denounces all of them and christianity also. It is true that there is always a christian that can explain away things, but that is a symptom of the problem of putting religion to the test, there is not authority that can state all of the beliefs that will create a cohesive picture of what it is that is believed. 

I have something in my hand that is colorless, odorless, invisible, and existing within a narrow dimentional space that allows it to be undetectable. Now prove it does not exist. As a matter of fact, using your same points, you must believe that it does exist. Now the question is, do you believe I have something in my hand? Why or why not?

Now, the mere fact that something cannot be proven to not exist, is still not a reason to believe in its existance. Evidence is needed to believe something exists. This is the answer to all of the points you made. What is the evidence for G-d to exist? For what reason should someone believe? All of your reasons seem to be, "why not?"

We start in a void that will be designated as 0.  As we float along you see something that catches your eye.  That object is given the designation of 1. 

You point out the object and say,"look at that! That is the most spectacular thing I have ever seen in my life! It is a great and powerful object! I shall name it 1." 

I look out in the distance and see nothing but the void. I say, "I cannot see 1 all I see is 0." 

I then see something flicker in the void, I say "I see something that could be 1 now."  Then I say. "Yes, Yes I think I see it now.  I see 1 now"

But as we float closer I realize 1 is not what I saw but rather a strand of hair that flickered in front of my eyes. I then say "I am sorry I though I saw 1 but I was wrong it was my hair now all I still see is 0." 

You say "1 is right here in front of us you cant miss it just open your eyes and your heart and you will believe."

 I then say "You need to brush that hair out of your eyes."

It takes no faith at all to believe in 0.

I see this response from theists rather often.

1) I demand evidence.

2) Here it is.

3) I can't understand it! So there's still no evidence!

Now we have an 'agnostic' doing the same there here.

My rule of thumb is: if a person asks for something, and then throws a tantrum after getting it, walk away. He didn't really want it in the first place.

You've no idea how many people I argue with display the Dunning-Kruger effect. I suppose that if I did do that, I wouldn't have very many people left to argue with.  

That is a pretty ridiculous argument. Imagine someone from the bronze age saying the don't understand how the Earth could be round or how electricity works, so both must be false! Would'nt a complete idiot be able to say NOTHING is true?

This may not be the most stupid topic I've ever seen on a message board but it's certainly in the top ten.