Effectiveness of Preaching to Atheists

[Typist]

Hi Whitney,

I understand.   I'm not quarreling with your definition of preaching, as a specifically religious procedure.  

To me, the concept of persuasion is more interesting, because it includes most forum users.   If we discuss our own persuasion, then we are talking about something we could do something about, if we chose to.   As example:

Preaching is spouting off your particular belief set without providing a reasoned defense of that belief.

Lack of evidence of God is often used as a reasoned defense of the belief there is no God.   Stating this position is not judged to be preaching, but just "an exchange of ideas".

But where is the evidence that a lack of evidence proves anything?   Only 100 years ago we lacked evidence for 99% of the universe.  Did that prove that that 99% of the universe didn't exist?  Or did that lack of evidence prove nothing much beyond the extent of our ignorance?

As I see it, those who are adamant on both sides of the God question are making their proclamations based on a lack of evidence.  Both are thus preaching, or persuading, whatever we want to call it.   Whatever label fits best, both sides are doing it.

[SSY]

You seem to have missed some subtlety in the definitions we use here.

It does not matter what the professed belief is, as long as they back it up, and listen to critique on their ideas. If someone came along and outlined why the believe in god, and then discussed with us the evidence, we would not label it preaching. If an atheist came in, claimed no believe in god, and when presented with evidence simply said "lol!!!111 Th4Ts Sto0p1D!!!111oneone 0NlY NoO85 BElE1vE iN God!!!!11111oneoneoneeleven" therein refusing to defend the position, they would be preaching.

Also, you seem to have misunderstood the basics of evidence as well. Are you willing to seriously consider the possibility of everything that has not been conclusively disproved?

[Typist]

Also, you seem to have misunderstood the basics of evidence as well. Are you willing to seriously consider the possibility of everything that has not been conclusively disproved?

Hi SSY,

In regards to atheism/theism, the proposal under consideration is the concept God, proposed to be the creator and/or manager of all of reality.

If we feel that science will likely continue to develop new knowledge at an ever increasing rate for maybe thousands of years, upon what logical basis can the God concept currently be disproved?  Can we disprove something if we lack 95% of the data?

Surely each of us is entitled to our own personal inclinations, and have every right to share our perspective.   As this sharing becomes more adamant, on either side of the question, it seems to become ever more fairly labeled preaching, given how little data all of us currently have.  

Imho...