If a claim is not true, how can there be evidence to support it?

So no?

Imagine Jones is killed by Smith, but Green is charged with murder after a letter from Green threatening to kill Jones is found. Do you think that letter should be considered evidence? Do you think it would be?

See i thought they were. Not from your post but form those strong vs weak atheist threads. If not though then id have no issue with them.

This was the post from zumby that I think clearly defined his position fwiw his account of my beliefs was accurate at the time I'm not sure it is now.

So essentially, you simply return to saying what you initially said while pretending debate has been performed. Like you tend to do. Regardless, your views evidence seem at best useless and at worst intellectually unhealthy.

Also, you still have completely failed to explain why your own induced version of atheism is somehow generalizable. You and FesteringZit are the two posters on this forum which drop the biggest blanket statements regarding atheism.

I have to admit I still fail to see why that definition should be labelled "strong atheism". It's like a democrat demanding to be called "republican conservative" because he is opposed to revolution.

His definition requires that we withhold judgement on whether something is evidence until we know that the claim is true and this is obviously wrong. I've also pointed out that he speaks of atheists as if you all share a specific position and this is as obviously wrong.

I don't think the definition is labelled strong atheism, I think it's more granular than that. The position seems to be

Z is a strong atheist with regard to X
Z is a weak atheist with regard to Y

If Z is pressed on whether he is a weak or strong atheist he'll assume the questioner is talking of X and so label, if it is explained that the questioner is talking of Y he'll so label. That doesn't seem inconsistent as a Democrat referring to himself as a republican conservative.

Yes, but there is nothing about weak atheism that makes it impossible to hold that Jehova / Ashurbanipal / Zeus / Whatnot does not exist. Weak atheism at its most base merely means you don't assert that "there is no god", not that you hold the door open for any notion of god(s).

His location IS evidence. I dont see how you can say it isnt. Its not necessarily evidence of guilt. But its evidence that is used to build a case one way or the other. You seem to be using a very narrow definition of evidence.

Havent you tried this line of reasoning before, and been shown thats its horribly wrong? I seem to remember something about law or court cases or something?

You mean this?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&postcount=45

As far as has been demonstrated in that thread, he never actually found that legal forum, as he ended up with this conclusion:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6&postcount=69

yes, thats it. That was quick work. Do you have all MBs stuff in a database? :P

I just pulled up the search function and looked up "law forum." That's the phrase that came to mind when I read your comment.

evidence of something doesn't have to be proof of something

this is true not only of legal evidence but in logic too

basically anything that supports an argument in some way is evidence

Of course there is evidence for God. But this is exactly why scientists used to be religious and aren't anymore. Because most of the things that appeared to have no explanation other than God now do. Enough things such that one can reasonably extrapolate that what's left will also be explained. Non scientists are unaware of many of these explanations. If they were willing to listen to them in detail, some would probably become atheists.

such as?

A person saying they have talked to her?

(I'm not joking)

I get your point but it seems to me that in the majority of cases atheist is sufficient, the distinction between strong and weak only becomes relevant once one tackles the correct attitude to hold towards the proposition(s) There is (no) God. At which point the account of God should be clear enough to take either a strong or weak position.

My problem with your argument here is that it seems strong atheism should never be claimed because if you are unable to rule out god because the concept is yet undefined then there isn't a distinction between strong and weak worth recognising.

You should have stopped after your first sentence.

The fact is, scientists have absolutely no clue whatsoever on some key fundamental issues:

1. How did the universe get here, from ... nothing
2. How did life get here, from... nothing
3. Where did the amazing complexity and information come from in DNA,
considering (as Bill Gates said) that DNA is far more complex than any
software ever written

Of course, scientists have said some really dumb things, trying to answer
these questions.

Steven Hawking says laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing'

Hawking is a smart guy, but this is a really stupid statement. But, it
follows from his presupposition that there is no creator/designer for
the universe.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."2 Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”3

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".

It's almost as if Dr. Lennox is less familiar with physics then Hawking.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how utterly stupid the
statement is.

Romans 1:22 Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools

Prove it by showing that you know the counter-arguments to Dr. Lennox's statements.

Sure, but first you disprove Lennox's very basic statements, that
should be a fairly easy task for you, right?

Are you not familiar with the arguments? It's okay if you are not. Just admit it.

I've read Hawkings' attempted defense of the statement, it seemed like
more gobbledygook nonsense to me (and to many others).