Let’s Stop Calling New Atheism, “Atheism,” and Start Calling it What it is: Anti-Theism

[wickerwoman]

168. I think there's a distinction between evidence and conclusive evidence.

I never claimed to have conclusive evidence that there is no God. In fact I've said twice now that it's not possible to conclusively prove that. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests there is no God, at least as it has been conceived by any of the major Western religions. If you want some right now, pray for a million dollars and see if it appears. No? Well, that's evidence for you. And when enough of that evidence accumulates for one argument or the other, then you can say with reasonable certainty that something does or does not exist. What you can't do is "prove" it or express absolute certainty.

And conclusions based on the application of logic and the testing of observable phenomena are more valid that conclusions based on "I believe" or "I really think x is true". Gravity "exists" because it can be modelled mathematically and because it works in a predictable way. Actual unicorns do not exist no matter how many people "believe" in them. I can't say with absolute certainty that there is not a dimension in which unicorns exist, but as they have never been observed I can say with relative certainty based on the evidence of their never having been observed, that they do not exist.

When one appears in front of me, I will be happy to revise my claim. And that is why Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are not asserting their "beliefs" in the same way that theists are.