No reason justifies disbelief.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I thought I had, but I'll have another go.

Reasoned disbelief is the rejection of a proposition when there is neither convincing evidence nor compelling arguments to support the proposition.  Let's do Bigfoot as an example.  I disbelieve in Bigfoot because the evidence for Bigfoot simply isn't there - no bodies, no bones, no adolescents, no scat, no hair, no nothing.  Believers use all manner of specious arguments to explain away this (for them) disturbing lack of evidence: Bigfeet are too smart to get caught; Bigfeet are hyperdimensional beings; Bigfeet are aliens; and so on.  Given the non-existence of evidence and the non-compelling nature of the explanations, I make the reasoned choice to disbelieve that Bigfeet exist.

To be fair, there is also 'unreasoned disbelief'.  Things like, 'I don't believe in Bigfeet because I'VE never seen one' or 'My spirit animal told be not to believe in Bigfeet.' 

Hope this helps.

Boru

Why do you think reasoned disbelief for Bigfoot is the same as for the creator?

When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.

It is the same for any proposition.

Then you'll need to supply either convincing evidence or compelling arguments (or both)  for a creator.

Boru

[Sal]

Why do you think reasoned disbelief for Bigfoot is the same as for the creator?

When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.

Oh, I love this. You can't have reasoned disbelief in a creator, just because.

I'm an atheist, not because I have reasoned disbelief, that's just shifting the burden of proof. I simply don't believe in a creator because all attempts to prove a creator has failed to convince me that one exists.

[Gwaithmir]

Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

The burden of proof lies upon he who alleges. Religious people should be aware that I'm perfectly willing to believe in god(s), ghosts, mediums, demons, angels, spirits, channeling, miracles, horoscopes, astrology, psychics, Ouija boards, the supernatural, and anything else for that matter, as long as they adhere to one proviso: prove it! That's all I ask for. Just one simple request. Prove it!

 Don't give me speculations, guesses, hopes, dreams, wishes, desires, beliefs, faith (or appeals to faith), or indoctrinations. Don't give me one-time-only, non-repeatable, non-testable events. Don't give me internal alterations in one's psychology or physiology which cannot be tested, observed or demonstrated, only felt or believed. And don't give me effects that cannot be related to the supposed cause.

 I have no objection to believing in a deity as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely, theists can't expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented, thus far. Every "proof" that I've heard and very piece of evidence that I've seen for the existence of God(s) has been easily countered by rational evidence/arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged.

 I'm more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. No claims which must be shielded from rational scrutiny are worth believing. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith, than upon facts and reason.

[brewer]

When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.

Please give us a definition, the attributes or the abilities of your creator so that we can address your reasons for belief and my/our reasons for disbelief.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why do you think reasoned disbelief for Bigfoot is the same as for the creator?

When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.

Oh, I love this. You can't have reasoned disbelief in a creator, just because.

I'm an atheist, not because I have reasoned disbelief, that's just shifting the burden of proof. I simply don't believe in a creator because all attempts to prove a creator has failed to convince me that one exists.

Erm...that's exactly what reasoned disbelief is.  You're rejecting a creator based on your ability to reason whether the evidence/arguments are convincing or not.

I don't see it as shifting the burden of proof - it is still incumbent upon the party making the allegation (in this case, a creator) to provide proof.  Whether we accept or reject that proof doesn't alter who has the onus of providing it.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.

In the reason biz, this is known as an 'unsupported assertion'.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

It does justify my pity and contempt for lazy thinkers like you, however.

[tackattack]

that's a new one. Please define reasoned disbelief @BrianSoddingBoru4

I thought I had, but I'll have another go.

Reasoned disbelief is the rejection of a proposition when there is neither convincing evidence nor compelling arguments to support the proposition.  Let's do Bigfoot as an example.  I disbelieve in Bigfoot because the evidence for Bigfoot simply isn't there - no bodies, no bones, no adolescents, no scat, no hair, no nothing.  Believers use all manner of specious arguments to explain away this (for them) disturbing lack of evidence: Bigfeet are too smart to get caught; Bigfeet are hyperdimensional beings; Bigfeet are aliens; and so on.  Given the non-existence of evidence and the non-compelling nature of the explanations, I make the reasoned choice to disbelieve that Bigfeet exist.

To be fair, there is also 'unreasoned disbelief'.  Things like, 'I don't believe in Bigfeet because I'VE never seen one' or 'My spirit animal told be not to believe in Bigfeet.' 

Hope this helps.

Boru

Yes that helps. I always saw it as belief is a threshold thing. You either had justification or it didn't meet a level of criteria. If it surpassed your threshold you believed, if you didn't your disbelieved. You make it sound here as if you're positively positing arguments against nothing.

[Catharsis]

Why do you think reasoned disbelief for Bigfoot is the same as for the creator?

When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.

It is the same for any proposition.

Then you'll need to supply either convincing evidence or compelling arguments (or both)  for a creator.

Boru

How do you think everything came into existence?

[Mister Agenda]

It is the same for any proposition.

Then you'll need to supply either convincing evidence or compelling arguments (or both) for a creator.

Boru

How do you think everything came into existence?

'I don't know' is not only a perfectly valid answer, it's the only honest one (not that someone can't have an opinion on the available hypotheses). Agnostico made a whole thread about the argument from ignorance.