A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[AppieB]

Yes, and it's the antithetical belief to theism, which is the belief that no gods exist. "Unbelief" is not a belief. In fact, it's not even a statement. It's just meaningless gibberish that requires no label, and offers no information. Which is exactly why the majority of self-proclaimed atheists are so desperate to hide from their own absurd hypocrisy, behind it.
Claiming "no reason" as one's reasoning is the logic of either an idiot or a liar.

I'm still dying to know how you can "overcome" logic. You are passionate to point out to others that they are not logical (even though they are). Yet, you don't seem to want to defend your own (il)logical statements.
Please answer this if you don't want to be an idiot or a liar:
If something is logical impossible, how do you "overcome" this logical impossibility? How do you "overcome" a square circle or p = not p ?

 

[Sheldon]

A year's salary? Well, I'm not a betting person anyway. Even if I'd win.

I'm not working at the moment...

 

[Sheldon]

For a pointless, indefensible position.

So you have no defence for all the deities you disbelieve in? Well that's your choice of course, though it seems oddly inconsistent. I treat all deities the same, and all the claims the same, beyond the fact that I'd agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I believe claims for which sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated.

I remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, as I must, but also withhold belief from them. I don't believe in any deity or deities as no one has ever demsonrate anything approaching objective evidence, just unevidenced subjective anecdotal claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you have no defence for all the deities you disbelieve in? Well that's your choice of course, though it seems oddly inconsistent. I treat all deities the same, and all the claims the same, beyond the fact that I'd agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I believe claims for which sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated.

I remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, as I must, but also withhold belief from them. I don't believe in any deity or deities as no one has ever demsonrate anything approaching objective evidence, just unevidenced subjective anecdotal claims.

It's unsettling to see how hard it seems to be to comprehend this simple concept for some people.

Even more so because they KNOW what it is like to not believe claims that have insufficient evidence (and which they can't disprove), because they will not believe that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage.

 

[Revoltingest]

For a pointless, indefensible position.

Easy defense of atheism....
1) There's no evidence for gods.
2) Therefore I don't believe in them.
As someone said, "It's not rocket surgery".

"Pointless" you say.
But you could learn otherwise.
Try to understand our position (instead of lecturing &
dissing, with your gleeful emoticon).
Most people are believers. Presidents, legislators, cops,
judges, etc come from their ranks. So we have great
interest in curbing their coercive theocratic tendencies.
You wouldn't notice things that adversely affect us, eg,
in public elementary school, we were required to say
Christian prayers.
Imagine if you'd been coerced to say something you
didn't believe. Then you might notice.

 

[Sheldon]

It's unsettling to see how hard it seems to be to comprehend this simple concept for some people.

Even more so because they KNOW what it is like to not believe claims that have insufficient evidence (and which they can't disprove), because they will not believe that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage.

It happens surprisingly often, but whenever I see a theist expending all their energy attacking disbelief, the inference is inescapable, and always the same. They're holding an empty bag...and are simply trying to avoid the fact that "the Emperor has no clothes".

 

[Sheldon]

As someone said, "It's not rocket surgery".

Kudos sir, that made me laugh out loud.

 

[YoursTrue]

It happens surprisingly often, but whenever I see a theist expending all their energy attacking disbelief, the inference is inescapable, and always the same. They're holding an empty bag...and are simply trying to avoid the fact that "the Emperor has no clothes".

Not always. And what's interesting (to me) is the record in the Bible of the history of Jesus and the interaction among his associates.

 

[PureX]

It happens surprisingly often, but whenever I see a theist expending all their energy attacking disbelief, the inference is inescapable, and always the same. They're holding an empty bag...and are simply trying to avoid the fact that "the Emperor has no clothes".

No one's attacking "disbelief". What's to attack? it's meaningless gibberish. What I attack is dishonest idiocy passing itself off as reason. And that's really all this "disbelief" BS is.

 

[ratiocinator]

No one's attacking "disbelief". What's to attack? it's meaningless gibberish.

Of course it isn't. As I pointed out before (post #746), if I gave you a warning that you might die, or come to some serious harm, if you didn't take some bizarre course of action, gave you no reason at all to believe it but at the same time it was impossible to falsify, then any rational person's response would be disbelief. You would be unable to prove me wrong but you wouldn't believe me and take the suggested actions unless you where incredibly gullible. That's exactly the response atheists have towards god claims.

 

[Sheldon]

Not always. And what's interesting (to me) is the record in the Bible of the history of Jesus and the interaction among his associates.

Well if you have anything approaching objective evidence you can demonstrate, then of course I'm happy to look at it. The new testament is not an historical record though, much of it's authorship is unknown, and none of it is an eye witness or contemporary account of the life of Jesus. The very earliest records date decades after the supposed death of Jesus, the bible was cobbled together much later.

 

[Sheldon]

No one's attacking "disbelief". What's to attack? it's meaningless gibberish. What I attack is dishonest idiocy passing itself off as reason. And that's really all this "disbelief" BS is.

Hilarious, I would respond but you seem to have disproved your own claim. Again the inference of you devoting all your energy in angry attacks on disbelief, when you can't even pretend to have anything approaching objective evidence, is unavoidable.

I might be more inclined to listen if you could read a dictionary.

 

[Sheldon]

Of course it isn't. As I pointed out before (post #746), if I gave you a warning that you might die, or come to some serious harm, if you didn't take some bizarre course of action, gave you no reason at all to believe it but at the same time it was impossible to falsify, then any rational person's response would be disbelief. You would be unable to prove me wrong but you wouldn't believe me and take the suggested actions unless you where incredibly gullible. That's exactly the response atheists have towards god claims.

I think he is closer to that realisation than most theists tbh, The anger makes no sense otherwise. The real hilarity though is in this sentence.

No one's attacking "disbelief". What's to attack? it's meaningless gibberish.

There's no denting that rationale.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well if you have anything approaching objective evidence you can demonstrate, then of course I'm happy to look at it. The new testament is not an historical record though, much of it's authorship is unknown, and none of it is an eye witness or contemporary account of the life of Jesus. The very earliest records date decades after the supposed death of Jesus, the bible was cobbled together much later.

I am not sure about other religious beliefs having a record and history of their gods and goddesses, perhaps you know. But I find the details in the Bible very convincing to demonstrate their validity and historicity. I know there are those who profess to be of a religion connected with the Bible who really don't believe it, but I do. The parts I can't "prove" to be true I accept on faith. but going beyond that, there are verifications today of the accuracy of the scriptures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not sure about other religious beliefs having a record and history of their gods and goddesses, perhaps you know. But I find the details in the Bible very convincing to demonstrate their validity and historicity. I know there are those who profess to be of a religion connected with the Bible who really don't believe it, but I do. The parts I can't "prove" to be true I accept on faith. but going beyond that, there are verifications today of the accuracy of the scriptures.

What about the history that the Bible gets wrong?

 

[Sheldon]

I find the details in the Bible very convincing to demonstrate their validity and historicity.

I find red a nicer colour than blue, what's your point?

I know there are those who profess to be of a religion connected with the Bible who really don't believe it, but I do. The parts I can't "prove" to be true I accept on faith.

There is literally nothing one could not choose to believe based on the vapidity of faith, so I'm sorry but this tells us nothing about the belief's validity.

going beyond that, there are verifications today of the accuracy of the scriptures.

I am extremely dubious that your claim is true, but since unsurprisingly all you offered was a bare claim, Hitchens's razor is applied - slash...

 

[YoursTrue]

I find red a nicer colour than blue, what's your point?



There is literally nothing one could not choose to believe based on the vapidity of faith, so I'm sorry but this tells us nothing about the belief's validity.



I am extremely dubious that your claim is true, but since unsurprisingly all you offered was a bare claim, Hitchens's razor is applied - slash...

lol...that's ok. I used to say that I didn't believe in God until my mind and life took a turn. I'm not going to go into it because I have found from these discussions that while I can talk about my belief, and you talk about yours, just as in the Bible people did not necessarily convince one another of their beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

I find red a nicer colour than blue, what's your point?



There is literally nothing one could not choose to believe based on the vapidity of faith, so I'm sorry but this tells us nothing about the belief's validity.



I am extremely dubious that your claim is true, but since unsurprisingly all you offered was a bare claim, Hitchens's razor is applied - slash...

P.S. I didn't say that every detail is verified by present circumstances or findings. But neither does that mean what is written is not true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one's attacking "disbelief". What's to attack? it's meaningless gibberish.

So when you disbelieve the claim that an undetectable dragon is living in my garage, then that is "meaningless gibberish"?

What I attack is dishonest idiocy passing itself off as reason.

Is not believing that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage "dishonest idiocy passing itself off as reason"?

And that's really all this "disbelief" BS is.

Like your disbelief that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

P.S. I didn't say that every detail is verified by present circumstances or findings. But neither does that mean what is written is not true.

You could say the same about the writings of scientology or every other religion