Why are atheist...atheist?

[Alastor]

I'm not required or expected to do anything. The burden of proof is not on me. However I shall answer, I lack belief in god's existence. I've never once claimed that there isn't such a thing. Theists claim there is a god, I reject the claim. I do not believe in god, thus this makes me an atheist. How can anyone fail to get something so fucking simple?

What does clarifying the ambiguity of your words have to do with proof.

"I don't believe in God" either means you have no beliefs about him or do not believe he exists, what I mean't by clarify your fucking position. Also, if you don't claim that such a thing can't exist, then it more than likely means you have no beliefs about him, which means I WAS NEVER TALKING ABOUT YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE! WHICH I'VE STATED A BILLION TIMES!

For the love God, or lack thereof, READ!!! PLEASE!

Please explain to me how this applies to my argument.

The special pleading was when you mentioned know-ability of two very smiler characters. You suggested that god is an exception when it comes to unicorns based on what we know of that concept? That is special pleading.
[/quote]

Wrong, actually there is a lacking of the know-ability for the God concept which is why they are two very dissimilar characters.

You have any evidence to suggest that he isn't imaginary? Also, I haven't claimed anything. I've looked into the claim, and saw no reason to take it seriously, so I've dismissed it as utter rubbish.

No I don't any evidence to suggest he isn't imaginary and if you don't assert that he doesn't exist then I was never talking about you in the first place as I've stated...wait...what was it again....oh yea...a billion times now.



[/quote]

[Violet]

you've failed to realize that I'm practically the only here actually being civil and also the only one actually reading peoples answers and positions.

Have I? I think not. I am an apathist regarding this thread and others like it: I don't care. Could I give you a nice 'civil' response? Absolutely. Do I care to? Not even a little.

Thus far, most I register is that you're accusing people of things which they are not, in example:

"As usual Rhythem, prove your assumptions and don't just "throw stuff out there" because your upset."

Rhythm is not upset. Irritated? Probably. Upset? Not even a little.

Further, you are annoyingly condescending and arrogant... which makes you incredibly annoying to deal with by itself. A typical expression of annoyance is to speak harsher and with more venom than normal. For being 'practically the only civil one here': you are also one of the least apt with social protocol and appear to think that you will be treated nicely by insulting us (ie: calling us barbarians by stating we are not civil).

What I do care to do (and hence this post) is to present my irritation with this thread to the people who matter (which are not you). You had a chance at civility in the beginning... and you fucked it up. If you want us to be more civil: try it yourself.

[Ace Otana]

"What does clarifying the ambiguity of your words have to do with proof.
I don't believe in God" either means you have no beliefs about him or do not believe he exists, what I mean't by clarify your fucking position. Also, if you don't claim that such a thing can't exist, then it more than likely means you have no beliefs about him, which means I WAS NEVER TALKING ABOUT YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE! WHICH I'VE STATED A BILLION TIMES!

For the love God, or lack thereof, READ!!! PLEASE!

See? Tantrum.

I lack belief. I 'lack' belief which means I am without belief. Do...you...know...what...that...means? I...don't...believe...it.
Also you can't say it a billion times, your lifespan wouldn't be anywhere near long enough to pull that off.

Wrong, actually there is a lacking of the know-ability for the God concept which is why they are two very dissimilar characters.

Thinking you know more or less of a concept doesn't make it any more special or greater in explanatory power. God is no different from any other made up character. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. If not, then your engaging in special pleading.

No I don't any evidence to suggest he isn't imaginary and if you don't assert that he doesn't exist then I was never talking about you in the first place as I've stated...wait...what was it again....oh yea...a billion times now.

Well if you got no evidence, then rejection seems to be the logical conclusion. Also based on Occam's Razer, seeing as belief in god is far more complex and assumes many assumptions and without evidence, it is there for very improbable.

---

Take it easy mate. No need to get all worked up. I've been through this with quite a few just like you. Kinda used to it.

[bozo]

Coming late to this, I refer to your first post, Alastor.
Given that we don't ( yet ) know how everything came into being, you take the lazy route and claim " god did it ".
You must then answer the inevitable follow-on question as to who created the creator.
I prefer to accept that what there is has always been.....an explanation that suits me until science or religion comes up with the definitive answer. Bet you can guess which I think will get there first!
There is nothing arrogant about stating a non-belief in gods. It is a simple, precise opinion.
There is no burden of proof on the atheist as there is on those who state that a particular god exists. Sorry.

I would also like to ask you if you worship whatever you think your god is?

[Alastor]

See? Tantrum.

I lack belief. I 'lack' belief which means I am without belief. Do...you...know...what...that...means? I...don't...believe...it.

LoL, I just capitalized the words but that is not a tatrum. You said a lack of belief. However re-read my post see which statement I addressed as being ambiguous. Hint: it wasn't the one your attempting to use now.

Thinking you know more or less of a concept doesn't make it any more special or greater in explanatory power. God is no different from any other made up character. Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. If not, then your engaging in special pleasing.

This is inherently false. I do not think I don't know, I know I don't know and that gives it far greater explanatory power within these circumstances. The claim was made that one believes unicorns do not exist, based on observation. However, observation requires one to understand the nature of that which is being observed. If the nature of the object cannot be observed then then a belief cannot be made based on the observation. A unicorn's natures is easily understood and can be searched for. God's nature cannot. This fact makes the characters very dissimilar and gives one the explanatory power to say that God can neither be confirmed nor denied based on observations. Furthermore any made up character which has the property that it created the universe is necessarily a misunderstood character because you would then be talking about God. So he differs from every other made up character because, any other character would then lack that property. This gives him much explanatory power

Example.

If I say I want to find a fire-breathing dragon named Rex. All I have to do is look for this dragon.

If I say i want to find a fire-breathing dragon named Rex who created the universe. I would still have to look for him.

However this fictional char is very different from God, because I assumed he was a fire-breathing dragon. If this dragon made the universe then how can I know he was dragon. I can't really know anything about his nature actually because I do not understand enough about creating universes to make any claims its nature. Therefore, I cannot really assume anything about this Creator that would allow me to look for it.

See the clear explanatory power of not knowing from knowing and how the two imagined characters are significantly different.

Well if you got no evidence, then rejection seems to be the logical conclusion. Also based on Occam's Razer, seeing as belief in god is far more complex and assumes many assumptions and without evidence, it is there for very improbable.

Without evidence, a rejection of any assertions is the logical conclusion which is what I've implied in the first post and what this whole threads been about by the way. From what I remember, and, I could be wrong, Occam Razer states that one should not use esoteric concepts as means to explain something. However, the concept is God is esoteric in itself. If applying Occam's Razer, I would not even discuss the matter at all. As for complex assumptions, the only assumption made is that from nothingness, or nothingness with a bias (which not really nothingness then), came something. This cannot be denied surely one of these possibilities is correct.

---

Coming late to this, I refer to your first post, Alastor.
Given that we don't ( yet ) know how everything came into being, you take the lazy route and claim " god did it ".
You must then answer the inevitable follow-on question as to who created the creator.
I prefer to accept that what there is has always been.....an explanation that suits me until science or religion comes up with the definitive answer. Bet you can guess which I think will get there first!
There is nothing arrogant about stating a non-belief in gods. It is a simple, precise opinion.
There is no burden of proof on the atheist as there is on those who state that a particular god exists. Sorry.

I would also like to ask you if you worship whatever you think your god is?

I get what your saying but my choice to believe in God in not quite that simple. Refer to my response to "Faith no More". I don't worship any God either. I wouldn't know how or who to worship. Such things would require me to make assumptions about his nature.

Also, it had already been established that what I said in the first post only applies to strong atheist which is not most of the people here if any at all. What your seeing with all the arguing and childish statements is simply the result of old-fashioned selective illiteracy.

[bozo]

Sorry Alastor, but believing or not believing in " god " is simple, it's either/or.
All gods I am aware of are terribly fond of being worshipped...... so watch out not to offend yours!

[Ace Otana]

LoL, I just capitalized the words but that is not a tatrum.

Good, because only a calm and cool head can debate properly. Think we both can agree with that one.

Oh yeah, it already been established that I'm referring to strong atheist ignorant because they assert the claim God does not exist without any logical reasoning behind this assumption. Therefore, what said in that first post does not apply to most people here. What you see with all the arguing, is the result of people not reading.

You responded to my first post, which was me questioning some of the things you wrote. That's where it started.

---

This is inherently false. I do not think I don't know, I know I don't know and that gives it far greater explanatory power within these circumstances. The claim was made that one believes unicorns do not exist, based on observation. However, observation requires one to understand the nature of that which is being observed. If the nature of the object cannot be observed then then a belief cannot be made based on the observation. A unicorn's natures is easily understood and can be searched for. God's nature cannot. This fact makes the characters very dissimilar and gives one the explanatory power to say that God can neither be confirmed nor denied based on observations. Furthermore any made up character which has the property that it created the universe is necessarily a misunderstood character because you would then be talking about God. So he differs from every other made up character because, any other character would then lack that property. This gives him much explanatory power

---

Explanatory power comes from the ability to explain the unknown. God cannot explain how the universe formed, god cannot explain how anything works. Of course it requires evidence which must be based on measure, repeatability and testing. Something that can be verified/falsified. If not, then it has no explanatory power.
God is not falsifiable, that's the problem. There is no value in the claim and so no explanatory power.

Example.

If I say I want to find a fire-breathing dragon named Rex. All I have to do is look for this dragon.

If I say i want to find a fire-breathing dragon named Rex who created the universe. I would still have to look for him.

If there is no evidence of such a thing, it is rational and logical to dismiss it. Why assume it exists if there is no evidence to suggest it's existence?
Also, ever heard of absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Like there is an absence of evidence of change in my pocket. So based on lack of evidence of there being any, there is evidence of lack of change in my pocket.

However this fictional char is very different from God, because I assumed he was a fire-breathing dragon.

But you also just assumed that god exists. Why?

If this dragon made the universe then how can I know he was dragon.

The universe exists, how do you know it was a god that did it?

I can't really know anything about his nature actually because I do not understand enough about creating universes to make any claims its nature. Therefore, I cannot really assume anything about this Creator that would allow me to look for it.

The beings you invent are just concepts. If you think there is a god, you can look for it if you wish, however, rejection of such ideas remains a rational conclusion.

See the clear explanatory power of not knowing from knowing and how the two imagined characters are significantly different.

No, because that's not explanatory power. Your god beliefs have no value, there for, no explanatory power.

From what I remember, and, I could be wrong, Occam Razer states that one should not use esoteric concepts as means to explain something.

Occam's Razer states that the simplest explanation is most often and likely correct. And that you only opt for a more complex explanation if there is evidence to support it. That is Occam's Razer.
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics...occam.html

As for complex assumptions, the only assumption made is that from nothingness, or nothingness with a bias (which not really nothingness then), came something. This cannot be denied surely one of these possibilities is correct.

The simplest explanation which is most likely correct is that the universe exists, and we don't know how. Saying god did it doesn't do anything. The more assumptions one makes, the more wrong you probably are.

[Alastor]

you've failed to realize that I'm practically the only here actually being civil and also the only one actually reading peoples answers and positions.

Have I? I think not. I am an apathist regarding this thread and others like it: I don't care. Could I give you a nice 'civil' response? Absolutely. Do I care to? Not even a little.

Thus far, most I register is that you're accusing people of things which they are not, in example:

"As usual Rhythem, prove your assumptions and don't just "throw stuff out there" because your upset."

Rhythm is not upset. Irritated? Probably. Upset? Not even a little.

Further, you are annoyingly condescending and arrogant... which makes you incredibly annoying to deal with by itself. A typical expression of annoyance is to speak harsher and with more venom than normal. For being 'practically the only civil one here': you are also one of the least apt with social protocol and appear to think that you will be treated nicely by insulting us (ie: calling us barbarians by stating we are not civil).

What I do care to do (and hence this post) is to present my irritation with this thread to the people who matter (which are not you). You had a chance at civility in the beginning... and you fucked it up. If you want us to be more civil: try it yourself.

Man you guys stick together don't you.

I'm not expecting to be treated nicer, but if you read the post you will find people accusing me of this and that without actually reading my post. Furthermore, my original post doesn't apply to anyone responding so there is no reason to be offended by it. The fact that people keep throwing accusations at me, with menacing connotations, without understanding my position because they don't read my post, somehow makes me the bad guy. As for saying I'm the only one being civil, it was simply true. I have not been throwing random accusations at everyone else with menacing undertones and completely ignoring there post and stated positions. Admit it if you want to or not, but I, and "faith no more" have really been two of the few civil people here. Look through the post you if you feel that is not true. If you don't care enough too, then don't just say I'm not civil without the facts.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. [quote]

No, that is not the definition of an atheist normally used here.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s). He may or may not make positive claims. An agnostic atheist, I assert only I do not believe. I do not deny the existence of god. I don't claim to know ,one way or the other

[SleepingDemon]

Okay, how's this..Definitions of god exists, descriptions of god exists, those we atheists refute emphatically. On to your creator premise. Nowhere in the known universe do things puff into existence. Nothing is operated by nor created by an act of magic. So why with our finite knowledge should we base possible yet unlikely creation scenarios as anything more than superstitious and fallacious nonanswers. The universe does not require magic, and it did not.come.from nothing. You will find zero evidence of creation.

We have to work with what we know. We have to separate the merely possible from the probable. A god, and a creator, alike are no more probable than unicorns or leprechauns.