10 Myths about atheists debunked

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god? What is god? And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

 

[rightwinger]

Atheists are better lovers

 

[Tuatara]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

Pratchy had a whole thread dedicated to this and he got trampled.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

Pratchy had a whole thread dedicted to this and he got trampled.

Not my thread.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

 

[guno]

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

Evidence of a negative?

 

[PratchettFan]

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

Evidence of a negative?

Yes. Are you suggesting that making a negative claim absolves one from supporting the claim?

 

[DGS49]

Even if there is no God, there are serious problems with atheism.

Part of the belief in "god," is a corresponding belief in the incalculable value of human life. To an atheist, humans are simply highly-evolved animals, having no more intrinsic value than any other animal. Hence, it is OK to release fresh water from vast reservoirs in the California mountains in order to provide conveniences to fish and other wildlife, while people who could otherwise use that water suffer. Humans have no more right to the water than the fish, eh? Atheists worry equally about "endangered species" and human suffering (though they would deny it vociferously). The proof is in the countless situations where human rights and prerogatives are taken away in the interest of, for example, "preserving wetlands."

An atheist has no problem with abortion because a fetus is just tissue, until the mother decides that she wants to nurture it. Same for euthanasia, and if atheists are honest, they would have no problem exterminating the severely retarded, severely deformed, elderly with total dementia, or people in a persistent vegetative state. The world would be a better place, don't you know.

Atheist leaders in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and elsewhere were responsible for massive killings in the interest of attaining political objectives.

Atheists have no rational justification for altruism or charity. They depend on "Government" to take care of the poor, the homeless, widows and orphans, both at home and abroad. How many atheist organizations are analogous to Catholic Charities - which provides food, shelter, medical assistance, drug counseling, etc., expecting NOTHING in return from the beneficiaries? I count ZERO.

Atheists disdain the lessons of history - as codified by most religions in their commandments, mitzvots, whatever: the importance of a strong & robust institution of Marriage, the importance of a sound and solid nuclear family, and they deny the harm done by "victimless" crimes such as prostitution, drug abuse, and adultery (assuming discretion).

Worst is the arrogance of atheism. In effect, atheists believe that, in essence, each one of them is a "god," capable of absolutely defining good and evil based on their own personal knowledge and experience. The idea that there might be some higher power or supervening intelligence is inconceivable and absurd.

Yet essentially all atheists claim to be "good people," and "nice guys."

Anyone can be "good" if you allow them to define what "good" is.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Even if there is no God, there are serious problems with atheism.

Part of the belief in "god," is a corresponding belief in the incalculable value of human life. To an atheist, humans are simply highly-evolved animals, having no more intrinsic value than any other animal. Hence, it is OK to release fresh water from vast reservoirs in the California mountains in order to provide conveniences to fish and other wildlife, while people who could otherwise use that water suffer. Humans have no more right to the water than the fish, eh? Atheists worry equally about "endangered species" and human suffering (though they would deny it vociferously). The proof is in the countless situations where human rights and prerogatives are taken away in the interest of, for example, "preserving wetlands."

An atheist has no problem with abortion because a fetus is just tissue, until the mother decides that she wants to nurture it. Same for euthanasia, and if atheists are honest, they would have no problem exterminating the severely retarded, severely deformed, elderly with total dementia, or people in a persistent vegetative state. The world would be a better place, don't you know.

Atheist leaders in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and elsewhere were responsible for massive killings in the interest of attaining political objectives.

Atheists have no rational justification for altruism or charity. They depend on "Government" to take care of the poor, the homeless, widows and orphans, both at home and abroad. How many atheist organizations are analogous to Catholic Charities - which provides food, shelter, medical assistance, drug counseling, etc., expecting NOTHING in return from the beneficiaries? I count ZERO.

Atheists disdain the lessons of history - as codified by most religions in their commandments, mitzvots, whatever: the importance of a strong & robust institution of Marriage, the importance of a sound and solid nuclear family, and they deny the harm done by "victimless" crimes such as prostitution, drug abuse, and adultery (assuming discretion).

Worst is the arrogance of atheism. In effect, atheists believe that, in essence, each one of them is a "god," capable of absolutely defining good and evil based on their own personal knowledge and experience. The idea that there might be some higher power or supervening intelligence is inconceivable and absurd.

Yet essentially all atheists claim to be "good people," and "nice guys."

Anyone can be "good" if you allow them to define what "good" is.

Boilerplate nonsense from fundamentalist ministries.

 

[pinqy]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

 

[PratchettFan]

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you. I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

 

[Tuatara]

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

Anyone who demands evidence for a lack of belief in god should provide evidence for every other god they don't believe in.

 

[pinqy]

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you.

But you were telling me that in the absence of evidence neutrality is correct. Neutrality implies equality. If you are neutral between two propositions then you are treating them as equally likely. As my absurd ghost of Nixon example was meant to demonstrate: this is not always true. These are hardly irrelevant issues.

I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

Yes and no. A belief that something does not exist (due to insufficient evidence or definition) is NOT the same as the belief that something does exist. Rejection of a claim is not the assertion of a new claim.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Because if it did exist, it could be defined.

 

[Agit8r]

The one I hear the most is that atheists are all gay. I assume that this means that the purveyor of said myth would be so if not for their faith's prohibition on said feelings/behavior.

Disbelief in the Christian/Judaic God leads to Homosexuality?

Boy, those Fundies don't even try to make sense any more. I mean, it is one thing to forsake logic, but it is entirely different to establish correlations between two distinct and unrelated concepts.

What is next, Atheist eat the flesh of aborted fetus in order to appease their 'NoGod'?

I don't know if it is limited to fundies. There is a lot of ignorance in the general population about the subject... well, any subject really...

 

[Papageorgio]

An atheist, post a story written by an atheist to make themselves look like victims.
Poor atheists are misunderstood, poor atheists, everybody hates them, poor atheists the world is picking on them.

You know how often I think of atheists? Never, don't care, I learned about them and don't give them a thought. Then the victim atheists posts their propaganda here and want us to sympathize with their plight.

Silly victims.

 

[Hollie]

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

You are the one making claims to gods, you assume the burden of proof. I'm under no obligation to believe in your gods or anyone else's gods. I'm under no obligation to accept the existence of your gods, invisible pink Unicorns or other objects de Art because you claim they exist until proven not to exist. That's ridiculous.

Concluding that your gods don't exist, while it might hurt your feelings, is a perfectly rational and reasonable position in terms of belief in gods requiring belief in magical and supernatural forces.

 

[Hollie]

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you.

But you were telling me that in the absence of evidence neutrality is correct. Neutrality implies equality. If you are neutral between two propositions then you are treating them as equally likely. As my absurd ghost of Nixon example was meant to demonstrate: this is not always true. These are hardly irrelevant issues.

I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

Yes and no. A belief that something does not exist (due to insufficient evidence or definition) is NOT the same as the belief that something does exist. Rejection of a claim is not the assertion of a new claim.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Because if it did exist, it could be defined.

I'm not clear on your reasoning for this. How does it take faith to be unconvinced of the truth of a proposition?

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you. I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Here's an audacious idea: the nonexistence of something defines its nonexistence.