Why atheism is a belief.

[Mister Agenda]

Belief:
1.An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
2.Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

I don't see 'evidence' anywhere in that definition. My lack of belief isn't a lack of belief because there isn't enough evidence to support me not believing. My lack of belief is a lack of belief because I don't freakin' believe. What is so hard about this concept? I don't accept the statement 'God is real' or that God exists. I don't accept it as true or real, I don't hold it as an opinion or conviction. I don't BELIEVE it.

You can say lots of things: you can say I believe I don't believe in God. You can say I believe there is insufficient evidence to accept the proposition that God exists. You can say that if I believe God doesn't exist, that's a belief. What you can't say, except out of a desire to be perverse, is that me not believing in God is a belief. Not believing is not belief. Nonbelief is not belief. Disbelief is not belief. It's so sad that any of that should have to be repeated or rephrased to get through. Even sadder that I don't have any expectation that it will.

[Ace Otana]

It is simple. Your belief determines what this evidence is or should be. Without some knowledge of what this evidence should be you’re shooting in the dark.

Nope, I've only stated that I've seen no evidence to support god's existence. Verifiable evidence would be best.

All I want to see is some kind of evidence that supports the god claim. That's all. So far I've failed to see any. So I have reason to lack belief in god. Though I don't actually need a reason to begin with.
I have no belief and so I determine...nothing. If you think there is a god, prove it.

You’ve just assumed your conclusion. If you didn’t know whether you did it that would be a fair analogy.

The point I think he was making is that asking for someone to disprove god is like asking someone to prove that they haven't murdered anyone. Try and disprove the celestial teapot. The claimer has the burden of proof, not the other way round.

---

What valid alternatives do you have? And if you don't have any, why negate without evidence to do so?

Just because we don't know where all this came from doesn't make god the default answer. Read my sig. Just because we don't know what caused X, doesn't make Y the default answer.
You might as well state that you're a theist, you don't have the brains to be anything else.

[Heather]

Simply put, if you "believe" something, it will not change. Look at Christians.... they "believe" in god no matter what. For atheists, it is not a "belief" because if evidence was presented, most of us would change our minds and then "believe" god exists.

Atheism is a conclusion based on the current lack of evidence. For example, do I believe unicorns do not exist? No, it's not a belief that they do not exist. It's a logical conclusion based on there being no evidence for unicorns. If today, a unicorn fossil was found, I would then "believe" in unicorns.

A logical conclusion does not equal a belief.

[JoopWoop]

So if someone chucks a insult at me and I retort, you seem to think this shows that all I have is to resort to insulting your intelligence? This one-sided perspective seems to correlate to the same rationale applied to your atheism.

I find it amusing that the unicorn, santa and fsm are all so commonly used as an example to negate a god.

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit. Is that all you have a teapot and fat guy in a red suit to 'discount' something what you have no idea of? When you realise you have no idea then you see why your perspective only serves to suit your assumptions.

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

[Ace Otana]

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination.

Perfect description of the god concept. Ridiculous and can't account for any unexplained occurrences and are products of imagination.
Now seeing as the FSM, the celestial teapot and pixies are so ridiculous, you should have no problems disproving them.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

So if someone chucks a insult at me and I retort, you seem to think this shows that all I have is to resort to insulting your intelligence?

So far, given what I've been reading, this appears to be the case.
You've participated in no discussion and have thus far not bothered to actually defend your riduiculous beliefs.

Santa, Spagetti monster, and such don't prove anything other than that there is as much evidence and reason to believe that they exist as does for your religion. That is to say, it doesn't prove anything and the fact that your religion is established doesn't make it any less ridiculous than those examples.

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit. Is that all you have a teapot and fat guy in a red suit to 'discount' something what you have no idea of? When you realise you have no idea then you see why your perspective only serves to suit your assumptions.

Your religion accounts for those 'unexplained occurrence' just as well as any other made up explaination.
What seporates atheists and other rational skeptics from theists is that we understand that and theists do not. They accept made up answers in lieu of no answer.

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

Atheism isn't an alternative. It's a non-acceptance of theism.

[Heather]

Ok, let's give in for a second. (edited to be nice)

Let's call atheism a belief. Ok, YOU WIN with your awesome arguments and have changed my mind.

Now what??? Why does it matter if it's a belief or not? What is your point?

[Mister Agenda]

So if someone chucks a insult at me and I retort, you seem to think this shows that all I have is to resort to insulting your intelligence? This one-sided perspective seems to correlate to the same rationale applied to your atheism.

I find it amusing that the unicorn, santa and fsm are all so commonly used as an example to negate a god.

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit. Is that all you have a teapot and fat guy in a red suit to 'discount' something what you have no idea of? When you realise you have no idea then you see why your perspective only serves to suit your assumptions.

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

Nothing accounts for unexplained occurrences, else they'd be explained occurrences.

[5thHorseman]

'None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit.'

No proof of god, Noah's Ark, immaculate conceptioin, water into wine, healing lepers, resurrection.

That's a real foundation of bullshit and i've only touched the sides.

We deal with facts and scientific theory, you delve into bronze age mythology thought up by mostly illiterate goat herders and a poorly written book that's translated.

[Napoléon]

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

The only petulant child here is you. YOU come here, telling us what WE are supposed to believe, and act like you're the font of all fucking knowledge? Well guess what jackass, you have no clue what you're talking about, people have already told you why you are incorrect in asserting that atheists 'believe' yet you carry on.

There is absolutely no need to provide alternatives for god. Why don't you explain why there should be such a need instead of branding us all something which you have no basis for other than 'you say so'. You sir are talking out of your rectum.

---

So no explanation for existence is required? It's safe to assume that existence simply is, no proof required. Somehow this isn't a belief, but do tell me more.

Define existence. Then tell us all how we 'assume' we exist.