Atheism is a belief system.

[Memories]

And you fail to provide any material evidence of your claim, than I'm going to be a bit skeptical that it actually happened.

But once again. even if you find the evidence unconvincing it does not folow that the claim is false, their seemes to be some serious flaw with your reasoning.

 

[Copernicus]

I would define atheism broadly as a rejection of belief in gods, not just "God". Gods are putative intelligent agents that have absolute control over some aspect of reality. "God" is the name of an archetypical god that created everything (including possibly other gods), is all-knowing and all-powerful.

What are your reasons for this lack of belief? ( whatever you want to call it)
Why shouldn’t we believe in god? Why did you make this choice. This is a very simple question.

I could list a lot of reasons not to believe in gods, although I do believe it possible to argue that the omnimax "God" is an impossible being. Arguments against gods do not disprove their existence in an absolute sense, but they license strong skepticism in their existence, which is all that atheism is.

For example, the evidence we have of minds is that they are caused by physical brains. It appears that death of a brain leads to the termination of a mind. Most religions take humans to have immaterial "souls" that have the function of a mind. Gods are also typically brainless thinkers. If you accept the hypothesis that minds require brains for their existence, then gods most likely do not exist. They are implausible beings.

Humans have a history of imagining the existence of false gods. Therefore, the vast majority of putative gods do not exist. Therefore, any particular god, other things being equal, probably does not exist. Human gullibility with respect to belief in gods is grounds for strong skepticism in the existence of gods.

I could go on, but you probably get the drift of my argument against the existence of gods. My experience of the world leads me to believe that they do not exist. I acknowledge the slim possibility that they could exist, but I also acknowledge the slim possibility that leprechauns could exist.

I’m not talking about the bible, I’m talking about an omnipotent omnibenevolent God here, and I am sorry to burst your bubble but science has not proven him false, also a number of arguments I could present for his existence are well in accordance with today’s modern science theory’s.

So you might just be interested in Victor Stenger's book: God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. It is a fun read, and it contradicts the cliche that proof of God is not a scientific question.

 

[Memories]

As should you, if I told you that I hung out with a leprechaun over the weekend.

If I look into it and find overwhelming evidence that you did not spend the weekend with a leprechaun then IL be able to pronounce judgement.

Its really that simple, their is no evidence against God, while with some investigation we could find out that you did not spend the weekend with a leprechaun and that such a being does not exist. if you say he is invisible and continue usurping the attributes that God has... and continue on this same trend I really cant help you.

 

[Baydwin]

This thread seems to have boiled down to your belief that atheism must be a belief system because it runs counter to your own beliefs. It looks like, from where I'm sitting anyway, that because you believe in God so strongly you can't comprehend someone simply not believing, instead they must believe equally strongly in God's absence.

Why can't you understand that the same way most people simply don't believe in Martians or elves, that others simply don't believe in your God?

It's not a matter of being taught something, like God, and then choosing to believe he doesn't exist, it's a matter of being presented with an idea and rejecting it.

 

[Willamena]

This thread seems to have boiled down to your belief that atheism must be a belief system because it runs counter to your own beliefs. It looks like, from where I'm sitting anyway, that because you believe in God so strongly you can't comprehend someone simply not believing, instead they must believe equally strongly in God's absence.

If they believe in "a world that is absent God," is that not effectively the same as believing in God's absence? I think that's the main sticking point.

Why can't you understand that the same way most people simply don't believe in Martians or elves, that others simply don't believe in your God?

It's not a matter of being taught something, like God, and then choosing to believe he doesn't exist, it's a matter of being presented with an idea and rejecting it.

Isn't that saying they believe Martians and elves don't exist? Being presented with the idea, and rejecting it.

 

[Baydwin]

If they believe in "a world that is absent God," is that not effectively the same as believing in God's absence? I think that's the main sticking point.

The problem is trying to assert a negative position as a positive one and thus turning it into a belief system. Instead of "believing in God's absence" an atheist actually "disbelieves in God's presence." It's a subtle difference, but it's what turns something from a rejection of a concept into a belief regarding the concept.

Isn't that saying they believe Martians and elves don't exist? Being presented with the idea, and rejecting it.

It's saying they lack any belief in Martians and elves.

 

[Tristesse]

But once again. even if you find the evidence unconvincing it does not folow that the claim is false, their seemes to be some serious flaw with your reasoning.

No, I didn't say that the claim would be false, I said that I would be skeptical of the claim. but personal experience is not objective evidence it is only subjective, and it can only be convincing for the person experiencing it. And the mind can be very deceptive. So, I may not think that you're lying about the experience, but it may be more plausible that you were mistaken.

 

[Tristesse]

If I look into it and find overwhelming evidence that you did not spend the weekend with a leprechaun then IL be able to pronounce judgement.

Its really that simple, their is no evidence against God, while with some investigation we could find out that you did not spend the weekend with a leprechaun and that such a being does not exist. if you say he is invisible and continue usurping the attributes that God has... and continue on this same trend I really cant help you.

There is no evidence against leprechauns either, but there is no evidence for god.

 

[Memories]

No, I didn't say that the claim would be false, I said that I would be skeptical of the claim. but personal experience is not objective evidence it is only subjective, and it can only be convincing for the person experiencing it. And the mind can be very deceptive. So, I may not think that you're lying about the experience, but it may be more plausible that you were mistaken.

well what are you? agnostic? atheist?

 

[challupa]

How so? Who are you to make judgement on their own experiences compared to yours?

It does not in any way follow that just because you cannot see something that it does not exist.

See trolls can exist. Are you saying my judgement is inferior to yours?

 

[Alceste]

But, then again, insufficiency of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And it follows that it’s really just a huge leap of faith on your part.:run:

You may think it an inconsequential decision but in fact, it has a HUGE impact on your life, in the way that if God doesn’t exist then ultimately all of existence is pointless, our universe is going towards rarefaction of atoms, the universe will cool, stars will die..

So, to accept this horrible idea without providing good reasons for it seems to be ( I repeat) a huge leap of faith on your part, and it must be very painful to believe as such.

Offering good reason to disbelieve in God (the judeo-Christian-God) would be providing robust evidence against such a being, which you did not provide, or if you do have such evidence then by all means share it.

This is exactly why such analogies like the flying tea pot or ‘’leprechauns in my garden’’ do not hold water: there is robust evidence that such beings do not exist.

Regards.

Rather than me giving you my reasons for having no belief in your god, please give me your argument as to why - IF I were to try to believe in a god - I should pick your god as opposed to Quan Yin. I like Quan Yin way better, and we have more in common. We're both chicks, for one. She's the goddess of compassion, which is an admirable quality. She doesn't deal in the retribution business at all, so if I pick her instead of your god my conscience would be clear - I would not be supporting a god who tests faith and punishes the unfaithful.

 

[Memories]

Rather than me giving you my reasons for having no belief in your god, please give me your argument as to why - IF I were to try to believe in a god - I should pick your god as opposed to Quan Yin. I like Quan Yin way better, and we have more in common. We're both chicks, for one. She's the goddess of compassion, which is an admirable quality. She doesn't deal in the retribution business at all, so if I pick her instead of your god my conscience would be clear - I would not be supporting a god who tests faith and punishes the unfaithful.

Simply because the arguments I would bring forth only support the Judeo- Christian-God. and not Quan Yin.

Its admirably simple.


all these arguments to only name a few:
1.) The Argument from Christ’s Resurrection
2.) The Argument from the Divinity of the Bible
2.) Teleological Argument
1.) Cosmological Argument

All these support the Judeo-christian-God.

Why then, do we so often reject the existence of the gods of other religions?
Many of the gods we have not even heard of before, so how can we say that we have rationally decided to reject them?
There are several reasons we don’t give the claims of many other religions much credence. First of all, the vast majority of other religions have simply failed to produce a positive case. This is where the atheists will claim that the theist is being inconsistent. However, the Christian theist is only being inconsistent here if he has not produced his own positive case. If the Christian theist (such as myself) provides evidence for his or her own belief, there is no intellectual sacrifice related to belief in the Christian God.
If the Christian’s belief is confirmed by all sorts of evidence and experience, then there is actually not much need to inspect every other view. Once a positive case is established, one is rationally justified in belief in Christianity and out-of-hand rejection of other views. There is no need to refute other beliefs. It may very well be that there is quite a bit of evidence for other deities. However, as long as the evidence in favor of that deity is surpassed by the evidence for the Christian God, Christianity remains the most plausibly true belief.

Skeptical Christian

 

[challupa]

Simply because the arguments I would bring forth only support the Judeo- Christian-God. and not Quan Yin.

Its admirably simple.


all these arguments to only name a few:
1.) The Argument from Christ’s Resurrection
2.) The Argument from the Divinity of the Bible
2.) Teleological Argument
1.) Cosmological Argument

All these support the Judeo-christian-God.

Why then, do we so often reject the existence of the gods of other religions?
Many of the gods we have not even heard of before, so how can we say that we have rationally decided to reject them?
There are several reasons we don’t give the claims of many other religions much credence. First of all, the vast majority of other religions have simply failed to produce a positive case. This is where the atheists will claim that the theist is being inconsistent. However, the Christian theist is only being inconsistent here if he has not produced his own positive case. If the Christian theist (such as myself) provides evidence for his or her own belief, there is no intellectual sacrifice related to belief in the Christian God.
If the Christian’s belief is confirmed by all sorts of evidence and experience, then there is actually not much need to inspect every other view. Once a positive case is established, one is rationally justified in belief in Christianity and out-of-hand rejection of other views. There is no need to refute other beliefs. It may very well be that there is quite a bit of evidence for other deities. However, as long as the evidence in favor of that deity is surpassed by the evidence for the Christian God, Christianity remains the most plausibly true belief.

Skeptical Christian

There is no way you can support or produce evidence for your god. The only way you can believe in your god is through faith that he exists. That's the way religion works. Religion is all about faith. You even need faith to prove Jesus existed. There is plenty of literature that makes his existence very unlikely. So basically you have come here to create a thread to preach to us and they to get us to believe what you believe. That is not the purpose of the forum and it is actually not allowed. You cannot change anyone's mind about god because you can not produce proof there is such a being. You need faith to believe in a god otherwise there is no outward physical proof that one exists.

 

[Memories]

There is no way you can support or produce evidence for your god. The only way you can believe in your god is through faith

No, with the arguments I provide there’s a good path to proving his existence trough deductive reasoning.

that he exists. That's the way religion works. Religion is all about faith. You even need faith to prove Jesus existed. There is plenty of literature that makes his existence very unlikely.

Sorry, but there is robust evidence that he existed, and almost all historians are unanimous.

So basically you have come here to create a thread to preach to us and they to get us to believe what you believe. That is not the purpose of the forum and it is actually not allowed. You cannot change anyone's mind about god because you cannot produce proof there is such a being. You need faith to believe in a god otherwise there is no outward physical proof that one exists.

I know you may not like what I write here, for many of your own personal reasons, but this does not in any way invalidates the logical evidence I provide, you know what they say: don't shoot the messenger.

I’m providing the info and the evidence here; you do what you want of it. I’m also pointing out logical fallacies in the reasoning of some of the members here, including you, because it would be a disservice not to do so!

I will not in any way try to convert or whatever.. I’m not here to bring braying and kicking donkeys to water I find that tedious and not worth my time, you either accept the stuff I provide or you don’t.

Not happy? Take a hike.

Simple.

 

[challupa]

No, with the arguments I provide there’s a good path to proving his existence trough deductive reasoning.

There is no deductive reasoning. It is a faith issue.

Sorry, but there is robust evidence that he existed, and almost all historians are unanimous.

No, there is very little evidence he existed, other than the bible. You see that as robust evidence because you have faith he existed. All historians are not unaminous on this issue.

I know you may not like what I write here, for many of your own personal reasons, but this does not in any way invalidates the logical evidence I provide, you know what they say: don't shoot the messenger.
Not shooting the messenger. You are entitled and I am to your beliefs. However, gods always need human messengers to get anything across. Why is that?
I’m providing the info and the evidence here; you do what you want of it. I’m also pointing out logical fallacies in the reasoning of some of the members here, including you, because it would be a disservice not to do so!
Right, that Christian obligation to convert or at the very least to get the message out. Well now you've done that, you've let us know you believe in god. You have yet to provide proof of his existence though.
I will not in any way try to convert or whatever.. I’m not here to bring braying and kicking donkeys to water I find that tedious and not worth my time, you either accept the stuff I provide or you don’t.
Then why bother?
Not happy? Take a hike.
No, I'm perfectly happy watching yet another person come on here and try to tell everyone he has proof his god exists.
Simple.

I am agnostic so I am not saying there is no way there ever could be a god. But so far there is zero proof. Faith is not proof.

 

[Valjean]

"God exists cause the Bible says so."
And why do you believe The Bible?
"It's the word of God."

 

[Memories]

"God exists cause the Bible says so."
And why do you believe The Bible?
"It's the word of God."

No, there is very little evidence he existed, other than the bible. You see that as robust evidence because you have faith he existed.

 

[Willamena]

Haha. He's lacking genitalia.

What's the symbolism in that?

 

[Memories]

Haha. He's lacking genitalia.

What's the symbolism in that?

A strawman argument FYI is is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
or Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments.

 

[Willamena]

A strawman argument FYI is is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
or Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's arguments.

Yeah. I know what it is.

I still say there's symbolism.