That's not at all what I said or implied. You can't ask for meaningful evidence before you believe anything if you have no beliefs with which to critique that evidence. Which begs the question, what do atheists stand for if they believe nothing and make no claims?
This is a common mistake people make about atheists. Atheists just don't believe in god(s). That's it. Atheists can and do have beliefs about things and can and do make claims about all kinds of things in all kinds of areas. Just not in the area of god(s) existing.
You can't say theists are wrong because that would be a belief and you can't say there is no evidence because you'd be making a claim which you said atheists don't make. THATS logic.
I haven't said "theists are wrong." What I've said is, I don't believe theists claims because they are lacking in evidence that would convince me that their claims are true.
First off, one would have to believe they knew what veracity the claim was making. Second, based on the first, one would have to believe they knew how to formulate a counter argument to the veracity of that claim if one wanted to meaningfully engage at all with those that made that claim. Before you know it atheists are throwing beliefs all over the place concerning the claim. Make sense?
Not exactly. Christianity and its scriptures have probably been the most critiqued, argued over, and analyzed beliefs and writings on earth. Evidence is not lacking. Historical, philological, archeological, philosophical, testimonial, ethnological, etc.
Good evidence is lacking. Testimony (for which we don't even have any firsthand accounts) is notoriously unreliable. Never mind second and third hand accounts.
None of it is evidence for god(s). The Bible contains the god claims, not the evidence. And there are a ton of claims in the Bible - some mundane, some extraordinary. Demonstrating that one claim is true (e.g. Such-and-such a place exists) doesn't lend any credence to the more extraordinary claims contained within it (e.g. Jesus was god incarnate).
By this logic, we can claim that Islam is the "right" religion or that Apollo supernaturally helped the Greeks win the Trojan war because the books in which these stories were told, accurately named some real people and places.
The evidence is there, the interpretations may differ but in every case I've read about those differences can be intelligently and rationally debated. You think a minor Jewish cult lead by an unknown Jewish carpenter preaching love for thy enemy in a violently religious atmosphere became THE largest religion on planet earth because of faith founded on nothing tangible in the real world? That, it seems to me, would take a lot of faith itself to believe.
It's a story in an old book.
Christianity became the "largest religion on the planet" because it was spread by decree, by force and by missionaries. It doesn't take any faith to recognize that.
What do you mean by believe in? In their real sentient existence? In their existence as fictional characters? Or in their non-existence all together? How do you define them? As soon as we clarify, I can give you my considered response about what I believe. And if it apposes what you believe then it can be said that "I don't believe what you believe" because of what I do believe not because I have no belief.
What I mean is, are you convinced that leprechauns exist? The little Irish guys dressed in green that hang out with treasure at the end of rainbows.
Then atheists (you) can't debate God's existence and should remain mute on the matter. But I've yet to run into one that has. You say you don't make claims about "god" but as far as I know neither do rocks. So if atheists don't make claims then what do they do? Just sit there not claiming anything? How can they say anything about God or evidence referencing God if they make no claims referencing God?
Of course I can debate gods' existence with people who believe in gods.
Atheists respond to claims about god. Atheism itself is a response to god claims.
Take a look around this forum and you'll notice that atheists certainly can and do debate and discuss the existence/non-existence of gods.
So now your saying atheists do make claims? I'm not sure you understand what the term means. Your making a claim here for instance. Once you make a claim, that is a testament to what you believe. If you have no claims then as an atheist you can make no counter claims to the evidence presented. Your reinforcing my belief that atheists simply don't want to claim a belief or even claim they make claims because if they do they put themselves on an equal footing with theists in a debate.
Read what I said again:
This atheist doesn't make god claims. An atheist claiming "god doesn't exist" is making a claim, but the person who doesn't believe, isn't making a claim. I am rejecting the claims I've been given that god(s) exist because it doesn't convince me that god(s) exist. I'm also an aleprechanist, and an abigfootist.
Atheist: I don't believe its raining outside.
Theist: Oh, okay so I shouldn't bother to take my umbrella?
Atheist: Oh no, I didn't say that.
Theist: So you don't know if its raining outside?
Atheist: Oh no, I didn't say that either.
Theist: So what are you saying?
Atheist: I'm saying nothing about the weather outside, I'm claiming nothing.
Theist: So, "I don't believe its raining outside" means nothing about it raining?
Theist: Then what does it mean?
Atheist: Um...nothing.I don't buy it.
Atheist: I don't believe it's raining outside.
Atheist takes a look outside and sees it's raining.
Atheist: I believe it's raining outside.
But that's not the equivalent of the atheist/theist debates. That would go like this:
Theist: It's raining outside.
Atheist: I don't believe that. Let's look outside and take a look.
Theist: Oh no you can't look outside. You have to take my word for it. I had an experience with rain and I have a super old book that talks about rain.
Atheist: But if we looked outside, that would give us the evidence we need to determine whether or not it's raining out there.
Theist: Well no, it's raining, but if you look outside you wont' see it. You have to have faith that it's raining.
Atheist: Umm, I don't believe you.
So your claiming - Since claims are formulated from belief and rejection is founded in belief - that those claims are wrong or that you presently are too ignorant (haven't the knowledge - not an insult) to know whether they are right or wrong?
Rejection of a belief is not "founded in belief."
Seems like a cop out to me. After all your here aren't you? And discussing these interrelated topics? And you gave counter arguments which I subsequently answered.