I don't do "lack of belief", bitch.

[Ben Davis]

I hate to break up the circle of self gratifying platitudes you all created here, with something most of you don't seem to get. (logic)

But... 'one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.'

Neither can you prove universal or absolute existence. In the grand scheme of things, everything's uncertain so rational people deal with the most probable scenarios, given the available data. That's logic & demonstrable evidence all rolled in to one, handy model.

[Panatheist]

Some god hypotheses are not disprovable no matter how improbable: I.e., a self-realizing transcendent absolute being on which everything is dependent for its reality but which itself is dependent on nothing (definition of a theist friend of mine). Certain claims attributed to such a hypothesis might be more amenable to testing. If someone claimed that this transcendent reality intervened in our cosmos in a particular fashion we might look for expected evidence. Then one might claim the evidence was somehow concealed. Something does not have to be absolutely disprovable to maintain a more probable hypothesis or even to withhold any opinion.

I would say I lack a belief in the concept of theism as defined by my friend. At the same time I am pretty sure that concept does not correspond to reality. I believe that particular God definition lacks reality. We might conjecture how probable my belief is (just how many assumptions I must make to attain it) but I would say I lack a belief and hold another that I believe is more likely. Ultimately I am agnostic on the issue but definitely incline to disbelief.

You are entitled to be certain in your atheism as a believer is in theism. But neither of you really knows the reality or lack thereof of untestable propositions.

[Drich]

I hate to break up the circle of self gratifying platitudes you all created here, with something most of you don't seem to get. (logic)

But... 'one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.'

Neither can you prove universal or absolute existence. In the grand scheme of things, everything's uncertain so rational people deal with the most probable scenarios, given the available data. That's logic & demonstrable evidence all rolled in to one, handy model.

Read the OP old sport. I never made any claims in it. I only pointed out that the OP was not logically possible and the following supporting platitudes were also deeply grounded in logical fallacy.

[Jenny A]

I hate to break up the circle of self gratifying platitudes you all created here, with something most of you don't seem to get. (logic)

But... 'one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.'

Indeed, but one can show god as unlikely to exist as fairies and considerably more unlikely than unicorns. A one in a few billion chance isn't worthy of serious consideration. That a thing is not absolutely disprovable is no reason to believe in it without actual evidence for that thing.

You cannot prove there is no Deathstar armed with stormtroopers, but there is no reason to believe that there is one. There is no credible evidence for god either.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I feel quite comfortable that my belief in God is justified. Since the OP does not present any evidence justifying his belief, I feel no need to do so either. That said, I would be interested to hear how he does justify his belief.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...one can show god as unlikely to exist as fairies and considerably more unlikely than unicorns.

By all means, do tell.

[Joods]

I feel quite comfortable that my belief in God is justified. Since the OP does not present any evidence justifying his belief, I feel no need to do so either. That said, I would be interested to hear how he does justify his belief.

Typical of the religious nuts to sit there and say they want proof of an atheists "non-belief", but when asked over several threads, to present evidence of their god, they throw fits because they are being asked to do the same of their beliefs.

All you christards get your rocks off coming here all preachy with your threats of eternal damnation, you sit in judgment of the nonbelievers, but fail miserably when asked why we should believe if there is zero evidence to support an imaginary sky daddy.

Sorry, but since WE aren't the ones who are insistent upon convincing the world of a mythical being, it's not OUR job to provide such proof. That task falls on the shoulders of those who are making those claims.
This is comparable to accusing someone of a crime and then demanding they present evidence of their innocence. If you make the accusation that god exists, then YOU provide that evidence. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about the existence of your imaginary god.

[Ben Davis]

Hey Nymph,

I hate to say it but Chad's got a point in this one. Kitan's made a positive claim: the certainty that god/s don't exist. Positive claims need to be justified. He's made one evidencial and one emotional statement regarding this:

1. There's no evidence to demonstrate the existence of god/s
2. He finds it demeaning to human intelligence that people can believe in god/s

Of course, Chad's responses would be:

1. An absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence
2. Your offended? So what?

...and if I was playing contrarian, I'd say the same.

[Joods]

Point well taken, and I stand corrected, however, the vast majority of the time, theists come here doing exactly what I stated.

[Ben Davis]

Indeed they do!

I have to say that my response to my imagined responses of Chad would be:

1. Well, if we went around believing in things simply because there's no evidence for them, we'd be believing in anything! There would be no boundary between justified & unjustified belief. Consequently believing in the Intergalactic Federation of Viscous Liquids is as tenable as believing in gravity.
2. When the actions of those with rationally justifiable beliefs are as anti-social as those with god beliefs, maybe then you can be dismissive of my taking offense. Until then I'll continue to be offended by concepts like divorce from responsibility, eternal damnation, indoctrination of the vulnerable, totalitarian tribalism...

...but then I'd be having an argument with myself