Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[BlackSwordsman]

I think the frustration is from the fact that god cannot be proven, and therefore the claim that he cannot be disproven is used to try to settle the matter. I think that in our day-to-day lives, for anything other than god and sports, we are willing to dismiss things that we cannot prove or disprove (I'm looking at you, "clutch hitting"). While the references to things like Santa Claus or unicorns are made semi-seriously, they do show that most of the time we easily reject such ideas on the basis that if you can't prove it, I don't need to treat it as anything but a myth.

As you say, he has no problem rejecting unicorns and leprechauns as myth, but doesn't seem to have any method to distinguish those mythological creatures from his mythological creature.

Frodo himself is guilty of the same dismissal of entities with no evidence, except his deity is protected by lapse in reasoning where it suddenly had to be disproven.

It's a simple reversal of burden of proof, due to cognitive dissonance, and the same magical thinking demonstrated by every superstitious belief in the supernatural worldwide.

I too have noticed that, that is often the case, I hear christians say all the time "cannot prove he doesn't exist" yet as you said none of those can be proven false either, But when we mention Flying Spaghetti Monster we are the crazy ones

[Rampant.A.I.]

honestly if atheist cant disprove a god that has been give traits that do not match observation like rising from the dead then said atheist needs to keep the hole under his nose shut.

You're right, such claims require nothing to dispel. They don't match up with anything observable, and can therefore be chalked up to superstition.

But, then again these types don't talk out of that hole do they.

I guess it is why most tend to attack and dehumanize this "perceived" enemy ... The theist.

That's interesting. You dehumanize atheists, then go on to complain about how atheists dehumanize theists.

Guess that high horse comes with blinders for the rider, too.

If you can separated the notion that you were screwed (literally in some cases) by a person then religion becomes easy to put it in its place.

But with the hate approach,

What hate approach? "You just say you don't believe in God because you hate God"?

or fairy tale tale fighting[quotes]

Theists reject fairytales, and any superstitious beliefs in the supernatural they are not taught are "true" without any evidence against them, yet to reject their claims, they demand evidence against be provided.

This is called indoctrination, unless you were thinking of fairy martial arts.

[quote='archangle' pid='656738' dateline='1398437224'](bad gods bible crap), it only forces the theist to clam up. this will never end I guess ...the average IQ is 100 on both sides ...

But it does end, in many cases, and people are able to critically examine their own unsupported beliefs instead of making up excuses for them.

You don't see examples of anything else that requires apologetics to defend. Why do you think that is?

[fr0d0]

As you say, he has no problem rejecting unicorns and leprechauns as myth, but doesn't seem to have any method to distinguish those mythological creatures from his mythological creature.

Frodo himself is guilty of the same dismissal of entities with no evidence, except his deity is protected by lapse in reasoning where it suddenly had to be disproven.

It's a simple reversal of burden of proof, due to cognitive dissonance, and the same magical thinking demonstrated by every superstitious belief in the supernatural worldwide.

So I've given you good reason why the concept if God is different to myths. But you ignore, not challenge that reasoning. Noted.

Let's say all non temporal entities are equal. Where is the need to prove existence? My belief certainly never demands it. Quite the opposite: it claims that objective proof cannot exist.

Where does this leave your objection? Completely destroyed.

[Coffee Jesus]

As you say, he has no problem rejecting unicorns and leprechauns as myth, but doesn't seem to have any method to distinguish those mythological creatures from his mythological creature.

Frodo himself is guilty of the same dismissal of entities with no evidence, except his deity is protected by lapse in reasoning where it suddenly had to be disproven.

It's a simple reversal of burden of proof, due to cognitive dissonance, and the same magical thinking demonstrated by every superstitious belief in the supernatural worldwide.

So I've given you good reason why the concept if God is different to myths. But you ignore, not challenge that reasoning. Noted.

Let's say all non temporal entities are equal. Where is the need to prove existence? My belief certainly never demands it. Quite the opposite: it claims that objective proof cannot exist.

Where does this leave your objection? Completely destroyed.

Casper the ghost haunts me, playing tricks on me while nobody is looking. You can't prove he doesn't exist because he's invisible, immaterial, and intentionally hiding.

[Rampant.A.I.]

He also might have a thing with Christina Ricci, and no one can prove he doesn't.

[NoraBrimstone]

The invisible pink unicorn just told me he saw Casper and Christina Ricci together. I think we can trust the unicorn.

[Angrboda]

So I've given you good reason why the concept if God is different to myths. But you ignore, not challenge that reasoning. Noted.

I missed that part. Could you link me to where you did this?

[archangle]

honestly if atheist cant disprove a god that has been give traits that do not match observation like rising from the dead then said atheist needs to keep the hole under his nose shut.

You're right, such claims require nothing to dispel. They don't match up with anything observable, and can therefore be chalked up to superstition.

But, then again these types don't talk out of that hole do they.

I guess it is why most tend to attack and dehumanize this "perceived" enemy ... The theist.

That's interesting. You dehumanize atheists, then go on to complain about how atheists dehumanize theists.

Guess that high horse comes with blinders for the rider, too.

If you can separated the notion that you were screwed (literally in some cases) by a person then religion becomes easy to put it in its place.

But with the hate approach,

What hate approach? "You just say you don't believe in God because you hate God"?

or fairy tale tale fighting[quotes]

Theists reject fairytales, and any superstitious beliefs in the supernatural they are not taught are "true" without any evidence against them, yet to reject their claims, they demand evidence against be provided.

This is called indoctrination, unless you were thinking of fairy martial arts.

[quote='archangle' pid='656738' dateline='1398437224'](bad gods bible crap), it only forces the theist to clam up. this will never end I guess ...the average IQ is 100 on both sides ...

But it does end, in many cases, and people are able to critically examine their own unsupported beliefs instead of making up excuses for them.

You don't see examples of anything else that requires apologetics to defend. Why do you think that is?

no it is how some people talk about theist that shows me hate. Sure, some theist are assholes, most aint. Just like atheist. Look at Sven rant about AA. Just because it has some religion in it don't make it bogus. Many in here have been popped in the ass and they blame religion. That's just stupid. People that were abused need to take a look in the mirror and see why and what they are striking out against.
What is bogus is rejecting helping someone on the basis of belief. Condoms in Africa is a great example. The RCC says if you stop fuking every single women and child you see you can slow aids. That is right. End of story. Whether you want condoms out or not doesn't matter. That statement is right. Why can't we address the despicable behavior we see in Africa with behavoir change with and without religion?
If a fairy tale changes someone mind, that just shows what they don't know. They shouldn't be offering an opinion either way. Let the grownups handle it. If god is loving why did he wipe a city out? I mean that's just a stupid question. If god is all loving why did he kill innocent babies? really? you are telling me a city or a child (or group of children) is worth more than all of humanity?
So now I have a boogie man god and a loving god to dismiss.
No apologetic for me. Prove the bible is the literal word of god without using the bible. That's where I start. I claim it was assembled by man as history shows. That's my evidence. End of conversation. everything after that is washy washy if not rooted in Constantine and historical context. And any discussion on a boogie man god or all loving god is a logical fallacy.
How a person describes the god of the bible is a look into how that person sees the world.
How will you describe "it", this thing that don't exist.


Yes, I talk to my fellow atheist like I see them (teeknow) talk to people that don't think like them. It discussing aint it. I have to shower after each post because I have jumped into this cesspool.

Hey check that out, maybe I do apologetics.

Touché for you.

[fr0d0]

Casper the ghost haunts me, playing tricks on me while nobody is looking. You can't prove he doesn't exist because he's invisible, immaterial, and intentionally hiding.

As explained.... totally irrelevant

I need to prove nothing

Because :

A. I never claimed any such thing
B. My belief focuses on my understanding of one particular entity, and not a single other.

---

He also might have a thing with Christina Ricci, and no one can prove he doesn't.

Ditto

Completely irrelevant

---

I missed that part. Could you link me to where you did this?

Post 167 in this thread

[NoraBrimstone]

But that "single entity" your belief focuses on is no more credible than any other, and no less ridiculous.
You only believe in that particular God because of where you are from; and you probably only believe at all because you were either indoctrinated to the point where your ability to use reason or logic to analyse those beliefs is FUBARed, or because you are scared of death and really really want to believe and can't tell the difference between believing in something, and wanting something to be true.