I'm still waiting on proof. Its been said that the invisible and the non-existing look very much alike.

I know god doesn't exist with same degree of certainty that I know there are no supernatural dogs in Full Circles nose.

I chose the last two options. The reason I also chose the last option too is because I don't believe that we label ourselves simply as to describe of our position on some particular issue.

well, it is better to say that atheist do not believe in "your religions god".

to claim "there is no higher life form" is as stupid as "literal bible". they both go against observation.

My disbelief stems from the fact that ALL stories (bible,torah,quaran etc.) can be compared equally to what we consider mythology. In ancient timesWe used to be polythiestic but we now think their is only one god. with many different regions across the world, each seemed to have their own religion. And now since we have discovered all different regions on earth (all with different religions) we now fight over whos theory is correct . The sheer ignorance and stupidity of religion has made mankind do unspeakable things to eachother. many people die due to holy wars and holyland disputes like kasmir and the dome of the rock. and it all centers around the fact that people object logic and subject themselves to the fear that is brought onto them by religion.....

Welcome. Horus was way cooler than jesus.

(April 10, 2014 at 4:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 10, 2014 at 4:34 pm)Chas Wrote: Other - Non-belief in gods.


You have been told repeatedly by many atheists that atheism is the lack of belief. You just can't wrap your head around that?

I totally understand your frustration chas.

I made the statement in another thread that atheists here make sure everyone understands that atheism is a lack of belief, and they called me a liar and demanded I make a poll.

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Giving reasons for not believing in something doesn't change anything about not believing something. Not to mention that atheists have no burden of proof. I don't have to prove Yahweh/Jesus don't exist anymore than I have to prove Zeus, Odin, or Osiris don't exist. Or any other mythological creature I happen to not believe in.

Your post makes no sense to me.

(April 16, 2014 at 9:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 10, 2014 at 4:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I totally understand your frustration chas.

I made the statement in another thread that atheists here make sure everyone understands that atheism is a lack of belief, and they called me a liar and demanded I make a poll.

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Can you demonstrate proving a negative? Do making the claims "unicorns, leprechauns and elves don't exist" require extensive evidence, or is rejecting their existence "burden reversal" as well?

(April 16, 2014 at 9:25 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 10, 2014 at 4:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I totally understand your frustration chas.

I made the statement in another thread that atheists here make sure everyone understands that atheism is a lack of belief, and they called me a liar and demanded I make a poll.

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Why should we have the burden of proof? Why explain with things we don't know exist when we can explain with things we do know exist?

Maybe Tod really witnessed divine intervention... or maybe he was loopy from the dehydration... or having a psychotic break... or lying to become popular... or didn't know probably theory... or witnessed the kind of fluke that ~1% of people will witness. We don't need to posit the existence of something that isn't known to exist to explain why Tod is making these odd claims, and that's what atheists don't do. We don't necessarily live as if there is no God, we just live as if God isn't a preferable explanation for things.