Hello,

I just want to ask a little, simple question here, to all atheists?

If you ask a believer why he believes in God, his answer most likely will be "Because I believe" or something to that extent.

Not very convincing, huh? The thing is, next time a believer convinces an atheist into believing, please let me know. I would be curious.

Let us turn the question around. Let us ask an atheist why he doesn't believe.

Most likely, we will hear something like "I only believe what I see" or "Why would a God let little innocent children die in a natural disaster?"

So we ask the atheist again: "Why don't you believe?". Let us record the answer.

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]". "You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

If you are an atheist and you so damn think you are right to be one, then let the world hear how you came to that conclusion, because for sure, this will change the world.

Thank you

I came to the conclusion that atheism is right because I don't think a god worth worshiping would need theists to play silly games for him on the Internet, or chop anyone's head off in real life. It's not so much that I believe God does not exist, there could be a deist god out there that has no impact on the universe and that would be impossible to disprove or know if it exists or not, my atheism can be summed up in these words - I don't believe you.

So, how about you stop trying to shift the burden of proof with this strawman (these are precisely the kind of silly games I was talking about) and explain to me why I should believe you?

Hello great Georges

First of all, can you specify a bit more precisely what beliefs we are talking about here? "believe" is so general as to be almost meaningless

(March 18, 2015 at 5:51 am)georgesthegreat Wrote: Let us turn the question around. Let us ask an atheist why he doesn't believe.

Most likely, we will hear something like "I only believe what I see" or "Why would a God let little innocent children die in a natural disaster?"

The first is a straw man position, few atheists have such a naive attitude towards evidence. The latter may be evidence against a benevolent God, it's not evidence against a malevolent or indifferent God. We already know from the old testament that the Yahweh is a crazy murderous s.o.b, so the horrors of this world are not really an argument against his existence.

Quote:So we ask the atheist again: "Why don't you believe?". Let us record the answer.

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]". "You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

Please refrain from telling me what I think or believe, it makes you look arrogant and stupid. Better ask, eh?

Quote:If you are an atheist and you so damn think you are right to be one, then let the world hear how you came to that conclusion, because for sure, this will change the world.

Thank you

There is no good reason to believe that there is a personal creator god who interferes with or is interested in human affairs. That's all you need. We don't have to "prove" the nonexistence of any god, just like we don't have to prove the nonexistence of invisible unicorns. If you tell me there is X or Y, you better give my good reasons why I should share your conviction.

(March 18, 2015 at 5:51 am)georgesthegreat Wrote: You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

Well, at least you found a way to feel superior to both groups, that's the main thing.

However, in answer to your question of what makes me an atheist: it's principally because I don't find the theist case compelling. It's not so much a conclusion, more a work in progress and always wide open to revision. All it requires is suitable evidence.

None of you has answered my question.

I am still waiting.

Sorry but the burden of proof, as you call it, is on you. Otherwise, it means you would first - if no proof - assume there is no God. Which is contradictory.

No. You are building a strawman of atheism. You're telling us our position, and you have it wrong. Please learn what it is first.

Atheism does not make any claims.

Atheism is not the position that there is no God. It is the lack of belief in the claim that there is a god. It's not the same thing, I go into detail on my website if you are interested (link in signature).

I am a logical person. I don't accept any claim unless there is good reason to do so. I see no good reason to accept any God claim, because I've seen no credible evidence that such a thing exists, or even could exist.

I'm not saying there is no God, so I can't be wrong. I'm making no claim of my own.

Being an atheist, for me, is the natural conclusion of scepticism and nothing more. I don't believe someone who says they have a dragon in their garage and then refuses to give me any evidence either. Again, I have no need to claim that they don't have a dragon. I only need entertain claims which are backed up with reason and evidence.

So to sum up, I reject the claim due to lack of evidence.

(March 18, 2015 at 6:21 am)georgesthegreat Wrote: None of you has answered my question.

I am still waiting.

Sorry but the burden of proof, as you call it, is on you. Otherwise, it means you would first - if no proof - assume there is no God. Which is contradictory.

No, you are claiming the existence of something, the burden of proof is so much on you. Why would you consider the opposite stance contradictory? In contradiction with what?

And you are absolutely right, an atheist may believe - and not think - he is right. Sorry about this. All the more evidence the atheist at point should not, let us say, disbelieve.

You have no idea what atheism is, and until you learn, this is entirely pointless.

If you think the burden of proof should be on the person receiving rather than making the claim, then you would have to believe everything anyone ever told you, while spending your life trying to prove negatives. Do you do that?

(March 18, 2015 at 6:23 am)Alex K Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 6:21 am)georgesthegreat Wrote: None of you has answered my question.

I am still waiting.

Sorry but the burden of proof, as you call it, is on you. Otherwise, it means you would first - if no proof - assume there is no God. Which is contradictory.

No, you are claiming the existence of something, the burden of proof is so much on you. Why would you consider the opposite stance contradictory? In contradiction with what?

Because I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove there is a God. But I acknowledge it. On the other hand, you are saying that I need to prove to you there is a God. Which comes back to my original point. If I were able to demonstrate to you there is a God, I would be sitting on a pile of money, because not even the Pope can do that.