Why atheism is a belief.

[Norfolk And Chance]

We know evidence for god is "unobtained" and "unobserved" but that is not the same thing!

You'd think that this god they have concocted....you know the one who created the WHOLE FUCKING UNIVERSE...would manage to produce some evidence if he wanted to, wouldn't you?

Maybe a notarized affidavit or some other such tangible evidence!

No, no, no, because if we knew god was real, then we would no longer need to believe in god.

It seems that Mr he who created everything in the universe, needs insignificant beings on a tiny pale blue dot in a solar system, which is one of billions in a galaxy, which in itself is one of hundreds of billions of galaxies - to believe he is real.

For him to prove he is real would fuck it all up. Somehow.

[JoopWoop]

Atheists state that there is no evidence for any of the mystical or supernatural claims made by any religion including but not limited to one or more gods.

It looks as though you’re trying to claim impartiality under the guise of ‘no evidence’.

Actually, we state that belief is required because there is no evidence. Evolution can and has been proven to whatever extent beyond a reasonable doubt. God and Jesus have not. It's as simple as that.

So you have assumed the absence of available evidence constitutes no belief. What do you consider to be viable evidence and how do you reconcile the possibility of all required evidence being unobtainable?

The only person to have made 'assumptions' about evidence is you.
You can't discredit science to advocate religion for the same reason I can't personally attack you to discredit religion as a whole.
You've already set up a gaggle of presumptions and are responding to things I've never heard any atheist state nor have I, as an atheist, believe or otherwise assume.
You're already off to a bad start.

I’m not concerned what you consider your position to be, I’m interested in the rationale behind it which you seem incapable of presenting. I haven’t discredited science, is this your attempt to divert attention elsewhere?

On a scale of 0-10 on the give-a-fuck meter of my “start” I would be around 0.

Atheists don't believe in science like you believe in whatever ridiculous faith you hold dear to yourself. Atheism is a term coined to represent a group of people with precisely one thing in common: we don't believe the claims from any religion.
That's it. The fact that you assume otherwise is why your entire presumption has failed.

And off you go again, assuming I’m somehow attacking science. I'm questoning your rationale ,not science. I hate to break it to you but I’m not a creationist, consider evolution to be correct and enjoy all the benefits that medicine can provide.

Somehow you intertwine what you think and present it as a fact. This seems fairly common for most people with beliefs.

Further, Atheists don't make assumptions to reach their conclusion - religion has simply failed to substantiate any of their claims with any kind of factual or evidence-based backing to prove that anything stated by any religion is, in fact, a matter of reality.

Further, you have and do make many assumptions. In the absence of any rationale to justify why you believe what constitutes ‘evidence’ you just attempt to transpose any responsibility to those who do believe. It’s akin to a child yelling “no” with his fingers in his ears. That’s what I find so fascinating that atheists gather under this shared banner of atheism which is lacking in any serious consideration of anything. Hey we have no idea, but in the meantime we’ll just yell “no” like the retarded kid from the back of the class.

Sadly it offers very little to any discussion, but atheists seem to consider it’s a viable position.

This was the method to prove gravity, relativity, quantum theory, evolution, big bang, germ theory, and any number of scientific ideas. These ideas have positive results that have practical benefits. Modern medicine has benefited from germ theory for penecillin and those magnetic resonance imaging scanners (MRI) from electromagnetism, for example.

Back to science. Is it your crutch against creationists or something?

There is no equivelent to the above for religion and as such, we reject it. It requires no belief whatsoever, regardless of your flawed understanding of our view of the world.

It does require a belief, you just fail to see it. I believe I have no idea and will quite merrily sit on the fence. In the absence of evidence for either position you just say “no’, which is illogical. You may have issues with religion, or think the world would be a better place without it, this holds no weight in determining that the atheist position is a valid one, or devoid of a belief set.


There is no equivelent to the above for religion and as such, we reject it. It requires no belief whatsoever, regardless of your flawed understanding of our view of the world.

Considering that anything is (supposedly) within god's power, a personal appearance, a signed note, and a proper demonstration of his/her/its control over life (perhaps he could make Mars habitable and fill it with earthlike life in an instant... or six days.)
I think that would soundly confirm beyond any doubt of his/her/its existence, although it doesn't have to be that thorough.

Based on your response I see you’ve clearly thought this through.

You seem to be working from the literal omniscience, omnipresent, omnipotent god. How do you dismiss the possibility of any other form of god? and what evidence is required?

You do realize that your entire post is basically strawman arguement, correct? Perhaps instead of accusing us of being self-contradictory, you could perform a cursory google searach on atheism, avoid the obvious religious-affiliated websites and allow atheists to explain our own position and draw your own conclusions.
Instead, you appear completely ignorant of exactly what it is that we do and you're making yourself appear foolish.

If I had respect for the atheist position based on past experiences I would be inclined to believe your own definition, however the desperation to prove the objectivity and logical position of atheism leads me to have faith in how you present your position.
That you hold belief but fail to recognise it would be similar to expecting Castro to say why communism failed. Just because you are part of something, doesn’t mean you can accurately define what it is.

It isn't. Because it is not a belief. Atheism has no positive claims to 'believe.' We are not asserting a positive and therefore have no beliefs to unite under, unlike any religion.

You are positing there is a lack of evidence for a god, so you unite under this. I suspect you believe there is no obtainable evidence of a god, which assumes that no god exists irrespective of whether it does or doesn’t.

If you're not a theist, then what are you?

Not a theist and not an atheist.

---

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

Emotion directs attention. If there is insufficient evidence of an object to stir emotional interest then the brain is geared to ignore that object. It may not be rational or logical to ignore the possibility of such an object, but it is reasonable to do so because that's how the brain works.

Which, in turn, is a pretty good argument against the existence of a god. Why would a god put such a barrier between himself and us?

Given that most atheists are actually agnostic, if pressed, I'd say atheism is more an emotional aversion/disinterest than a belief.

I agree. You can call it aversion if you'd prefer, it's just semantics. It still forms a view/perspective/belief which has no basis in knowledge. If you had no emotional interest in the non-existence of a god, then I don't believe someone would bother to define them self as an atheist.

[Minimalist]

Not a theist and not an atheist.

So......not much of anything, then. Fine.

[JoopWoop]

You have assumed that evidence is available and observable;

Exactly. You'd be amazed how many theistic shitheads try to claim that whatever brain fart they have at any given moment is "evidence."

It isn't.

Yes but that's an extreme position and one which won't convince many. Conversely to claim your position is objective and logical you would need some viable alternative to some first cause, creator etc to effectively discount it. Otherwise it will always hang around.

[Cyberman]

Okay, for evidence let's take prayer. It's stated quite clearly over and over again in your holy book that anything - emphasis on the anything - that is asked in prayer will be granted. Pray for some unambiguous event to happen; for the sake of experiment, let's ask for every single case of cancer to be eradicated overnight. That ought to be a trivial thing for a god, no? Just think how many converts it could win over in the blink of its metaphorical eye. Are you willing to perform the experiment?

[JoopWoop]

Not a theist and not an atheist.

So......not much of anything, then. Fine.

I'm just withholding my view until the facts are in. Atheists and theists are the same in my book, yet atheists refuse to admit it.

Yet somehow atheists absolve themselves from being involved in any form of debate. Quite fascinating and strange really.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Yes but that's an extreme position and one which won't convince many. Conversely to claim your position is objective and logical you would need some viable alternative to some first cause, creator etc to effectively discount it. Otherwise it will always hang around.

I don't recall Minimalist making any claims to be logical OR objective. He simply stated that your beliefs aren't worth the paper it's printed on.

The fact that you are delusional CAN be proven objectively and logically.

[AthiestAtheist]

You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

That is the definition of evidence! If it is not available or observable, then it is not evidence! If it is unobtainable, then that is your problem. Atheism is not a belief in the same sense that -1 is not a whole number. You can argue all you want that it is, but by the very definition of it, it is not.

[JoopWoop]

Oh dear, here we go again with the "if the evidence is unobtainable..." line. These xtians think think they are so smart with that one. I couldn't find a big enough facepalm on the entire internet to do it justice.

How would one KNOW evidence of god is "unobtainable" or as Frodo likes to say "unobservable"? We know evidence for god is "unobtained" and "unobserved" but that is not the same thing! And the reasonable conclusion to arrive at from a lack of observed or obtained evidence is...non belief in it's existence.

Geez you completely miss the point with that one. The point is you won't KNOW which is why you need some viable alternative to be presented.

Simply throwing your hands in the air and assuming nothing is the cause of everything (due to quantum foam measurements) is very weak and will only convince the converted.

---

Yes but that's an extreme position and one which won't convince many. Conversely to claim your position is objective and logical you would need some viable alternative to some first cause, creator etc to effectively discount it. Otherwise it will always hang around.

I don't recall Minimalist making any claims to be logical OR objective. He simply stated that your beliefs aren't worth the paper it's printed on.

The fact that you are delusional CAN be proven objectively and logically.

Your post may as well read:
"No we're not objective and logical, only anything we say and believe is."
Are you really that far gone that you fail to see the hypocrisy in that?

The sad thing some atheists seem to think they have a higher level of intelligence when they fail to see their own flaws.

---

You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

That is the definition of evidence! If it is not available or observable, then it is not evidence! If it is unobtainable, then that is your problem. Atheism is not a belief in the same sense that -1 is not a whole number. You can argue all you want that it is, but by the very definition of it, it is not.

tahh daahh. I think you might have got it.

You're asking for unobtainable evidence.

---

Okay, for evidence let's take prayer. It's stated quite clearly over and over again in your holy book that anything - emphasis on the anything - that is asked in prayer will be granted. Pray for some unambiguous event to happen; for the sake of experiment, let's ask for every single case of cancer to be eradicated overnight. That ought to be a trivial thing for a god, no? Just think how many converts it could win over in the blink of its metaphorical eye. Are you willing to perform the experiment?

Why would I pray? You seem highly restrictive in what your atheism is against.

[AthiestAtheist]

tahh daahh. I think you might have got it.

You're asking for unobtainable evidence.

You have no evidence, then why should I believe? Without evidence the odds of God existing essentially drop to 0.