Why atheism is a belief.

[goodcake]

I managed to hack into the system again...somehow. Anyway...

I'm sure we're all mystified at how you managed to pull it off.

It's actually very simple. I created a new email account - funnily enough it was exactly the same name as my previously banned, but I added a "1" to the name. This managed to get past your eagle eyed mods, but to be fair most were probably having their nappy changed.

It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.

At the time that adults widely believed in fairies they served the purpose of explaining accidents, unexpected fortune, cows going dry, sick children, mental illness, ugly guys with hot wives, that sort of thing. They're a good example of a once-widespread belief that is now mostly abandoned because new widespread beliefs have replaced it. And the level of logic used to support their existence at the time involved evidence and logic equivalent to what is used to advance the God hypothesis today

.

So if something is wrong due to x, anything is wrong due to x? Fascinating logic you've applied there.

If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?

Faeries provide an explanation for things that are more reasonably accounted for with natural processes, and so does God. If you prefer, I can equate your God with another, roughly equivalent God. Which God do you believe in?

Don't. So everything can be explained naturally including that which created what 'naturally' is? Got a footnote for that?

I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.

What's the definition of God to which you are open?

You tell me some. But I'll get the ball rolling for you. Any which claims to be the correct one to believe, and states you'd go to hell (or equivalent) if you get it wrong, I'm not open to. Purely on the basis that I don't agree with the application of it. I could be wrong, but it's not a god I would be willing to consider.

If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.

When given a choice between a proposed entity and nothing, nothing (the null hypothesis) is to be preferred absent an evidence-based reason to believe the entity actually exists. That is because an infinite number of entities that can't be proven not to exist can be postulated which are also mutually exclusive, meaning that it is unreasonable to assign a significant probability to any one of them based solely on the testimony of people who aren't in a postiion to know more than anyone else on the matter.

Yes which is exactly why I do not define, but remain open. Simply using the inability to negate something which does not exist cannot be the crux of your argument. You've assumed your conclusion.

It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

All we have is a good idea of what a valid position is and choosing not to hold an invalid one. Rejecting an invalid position does not carry any requirement to replace it with something if a valid alternative is not available. We don't believe in Vishnu because there is no good reason to think Vishnu is real, we don't have to replace Vishnu with anything.

Existence demands an explanation whether you attribute it to Vishnu, another God, the possibility of a god, natural explanation, or nothing is your choice. But at the moment all are as viable as each other as there is nothing to state why another is more likely than another.

[

Ahh yes the rammstein kid. Unless you can incorporate insults into your argument, cunt, I believe they're not tolerated.

You're still not doing it right. Someone saying this is my argument, cunt, is still making a personal insult, which is against the rules. Adding a personal insult to an argument is cuntish argumentation.

It's not an insult, just an observation.

The difference is that we know that Santa does not buy presents, as all presents given to a child can be accounted for (i.e. who gave them which present). If there were presents which could not be accounted for this would provide the same level of the unknown as god presents us with. Otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges, unless you know that a god does not exist with the same level of certainty that santa does not exist. It's a bad anaology which makes no point and serves to reenforce a conclusion already made rather than actually convincing anyone.

Can you prove that no presents at all are left by Santa? Have you never heard of a Christmas miracle, like an unknown stranger bringing just what you need to make Christmas joyous? And what about the spirit of generosity that reaches unique levels at Christmas time, can you conclusively say Santa Claus is not responsible for this?

Riggghht, is that seriously your response? Or are you just struggling or bored?

I understand that. But this only highlights your conclusion. Tell me why you don't believe in a god, what evidence is present to discount it? Do you have a validated alternative which can remove the requirement for a creator? It's very simple to negate a santa or tooth fairy through cause and effect. If you're going to say "there really isn't any difference" you should be able to account for everything which a god may have created. Otherwise your statement is subjective and unjustified.

There is no validated argument that there is a requirement for a creator. You feeling that natural explanations for existence are unsatisfying does not establish such a requirement. God is an explanation which explains nothing that can't be explained without recourse to undetectable entities, Occam's Razor is a good enough reason to slice off such an 'explanation'.

Explaining that existence came from nothing, is one step too far for Occam's razor.

Yes I understand this as well and as I've said the leprechaun does not account for anything which is unknown, so why invoke something unrequired to attempt to illustrate your point, when it doesn't? If you have proof to show a god is not required, then use it. Otherwise your position simply becomes one of wishful thinking.

Leprechauns (and other faeries) accounted for plenty that was unknown when belief in them was popular.

Such as gold at the end of rainbows? Tell me there's more to your rationale I must admit I'm disappointed.

Yes I knw what they consider them to be. But their considerations hold no value, unless you can justify what you believe to be true. Surely there's more to it than this?

For rational skeptics, that's it. No more reason not to believe in God than we have for not believing in ghosts, faeries, the Loch Ness monster, or any other proposed entity for which there is insufficient evidence. Well, certain versions of God are absurd, like one that's omniscient, omnipotent, omnbenevolent, and free willed all at the same time...THAT God is clearly just the result of generations of people claiming their God is better than anyone else's without thinking it through.

Yes fairies ghosts....you've said that many times now.

That seems an odd question. If there is only one option, no alternatives are required.
Existence was either created (or the indreict product of) or uncreated. If created, then there is a creator. If uncreated everything is pure chance/random/eternal.

That seems a false dichotomy. What is your evidence that uncreated things are pure chance/random/eternal?

What is your evidence of an uncreated?

Until the eternal or chance can be proven to be a valid option as opposed to just an option, the requirement for a god cannot be removed. Conversely, on the incredibly low chance that god appears and is 'proven' to exist, this would remove the requirement for alternatives.

We can imagine more valid options than you can, apparently.

Really? Try offering one and commit to somehting other than saying "no'

Nothing does not cause existence, nor does nothing entail eternity.

It might be as simple as something exists because nothing can't exist. You do not know enough to eliminate natural processes as a likely explanation for existence existing. And if existence must have an entity to explain it, the existence of the entity that explains it must also require one. Can you provide such an explanation for the existence of a Creator? You're only moving the big question back to a placeholder you call God.

Ha ha I love it. I thought the answer was 42 and instead it's "something exists because nothing can't exist."

I know I don't know enough to elimate natural processes, seemingly you know enough to state it is natrual processes. Like a "Nature of the gaps.

You can have no problem with it, that's fine as a personal choice. But you need to rationalise it to others if you want it to be understandable or worthwhile. Just removing god on the basis of leprechauns is frail position to hold.

The leprechaun comparison is only an illustration of how frail is the position that you hold. That's the entire point of it. It's a challenge to provide a justification for believing in the existence of God that can't also be applied to the existence of leprechauns. That you are stuck at 'wah, don't compare God to leprechauns' illustrates that it's a challenge you can't meet.

It illustrates you don't understand the question.

Let's accuse anyone who is not an atheist to be a theist. The classic and predictable retort.

Confusion about the position of someone who only states what they are not is to be expected.

Further proof of the black and white view of how the devout see the world.

---

Not really the burden of proof is on either side to affirm their conclusions is correct based on either proving or disproving a god, or a natural alternative(s) In the absense of an alternative, you cannot remove god validly, you only remove it based on your personal preference to do so. Atheists may claim the burden of proof is on theists, but they will only receive 'amens' from other atheists by stating this. You may maintain that this burden lays elsewhere, but until atheists accept what proof they need to provide for their position to be considered valid, they will never reach any non-atheists. This is another reason why atheism is viewed as a structured belief, in that it's a shared view which only atheists consdier to be true/valid.

It's the null hypothesis which must be disproved before accepting that an entity exists.

You've misinterpretted what I believe. I don't have a defined god, I just have left the possibility of a god existing open.

Then you literally don't know what it is you're talking about, which is a good enough reason to reject your assertion that something you can't define actually exists.

Where have I said it actually exists? I assert you and I do now know enough to know assert anything. Yet given your desire to exert some control on something you cannot know, you assert false analogies and allocate knowledge to something which rests on humanity's own limitations. Fascinating really. I'm just amazed atheists have managed to convince themselves that they know when they don't.

It's amazing that the vast majority of athiests think otherwise. I would guess you've based your view on a "us vs. them" mentality.

Maybe if you were up front about your position you would have a different experience, Mr. 'I'm not a theist OR an atheist'.

I'm not defending my position. That you think I'm a theist is of no consequence, it just outlines the limited ability of atheist, which is seemingly symptomatic of the condition.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

Nope. It's just that belief in something actually existing that can't be distinguished from things that are imaginary is not rationally justifiable.

Whoops you missed the point there "It's imaginary as it does not actually exist." Is this really how you rationalise your view to yourself?

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

I don't think anyone actually does that. Some of us do try to limit our entire life and views on what is probably not imaginary.

Given only that which is measurable exists, you will miss many things. But yes, back to the imaginary...

You're in no position to state that apart from your personal beliefs in what science can do. It seems science has become a new religion (scientism), odd that people use it to refute god, which is a question it probably cannot, and is not looking to, answer.

It is true that science is unequipped to prove that imaginary beings don't really exist.

And again. Dammit I said it's imaginary I do not need to justify it as fairies aren't real. What more proof do you require?

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

It is impossible for all supernatural beliefs to be true. It is not impossible for all supernatural beliefs to be false. It is highly likely that any particular supernatural belief is false based on the innumberable other supernatural beliefs that exclude any particular belief. Rejecting all supernatural beliefs is more reasonable than accepting any of them, based on chance alone.

Your belief just slots in amongst the others, you have the same conviction of the others. The only difference is you don't think yours is, which is quite amusing really.

So your view of delusion is anyone who is christian and to justify this, you take the exception to illustrate this? I have no idea how fundamentalists justify many things they do, whether it's in the name of religion or otherwise. Killing and abusing children is horrendous and these fuckers should be shot, however that these people use religion to justify their actions does not denigrate all religious people. You seem too eager to jump to conclusions using extreme examples.

And you seem too eager to keep the baby in with the boiling bathwater.

And you retort to my accusation of using extreme examples, by using another extreme example. Tell me you have more than this?

Yes there are contradicting views amongst all sects of religious groups and within non-religious groups. I'm not sure what this proves. Do you think there is one prevailing (religious or non-religious) group or individual who is correct? and if so, why?

I think the group of people who don't believe in supernatural entities is the group that is correct. Would you be kind enough to point out how we contradict each other?

Some know, some believe, atheists are at great pains to differentiate between one another as if they share their beliefs it becomes *gasp* a congregation.

Some are annoyed at the use of the term agnostic and the probability determined by Dawkins of 50% to a god. Many atheist positions are pure semantics without an actual position.

[Jackalope]

It's actually very simple. I created a new email account - funnily enough it was exactly the same name as my previously banned, but I added a "1" to the name. This managed to get past your eagle eyed mods, but to be fair most were probably having their nappy changed.

More likely, they're waiting for someone to report banned users when they show up under a new account (and conveniently admit to same). You think anyone is actually proactively monitoring new accounts? Doubtful.

Oh, BTW - reported.

[Whateverist]

Remember the opening scene from 2001 A Space Odyssey when one chimp/proto human killed another? Then they all came up to hit at the dead chimp with great trepidation. Sometimes I get the feeling on this site that god is that dead chimp and everyone wants to make a show of smacking him now that he's dead. Do we think we're brave for declaring our disbelief? I don't. God is dead. He can't hurt you.

The issue on this thread was why atheism is a belief. Well it needn't be and to my mind shouldn't be elevated to such. Weak atheism, the recognition that one has no belief in god along with indifference toward what is irrelevant should be enough. Why do so many insist on going further to argue for strong atheism, that god does not exist? Must every nonsensical or fictional character be argued against? Why?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if somebody pops up to argue for the factual existence of Hal, his rulebook, and why it belongs in a position of authority in social, scientific, and legal spheres I'll be the first to offer the strong anti-hal arguments. Does that make it easier to understand? All fictional characters need not be argued against. Some apparently do. Believers cant keep their mouths shut and their noses out of places they don't belong.

[Whateverist]

Well, if somebody pops up to argue for the factual existence of Hal, his rulebook, and why it belongs in a position of authority in social, scientific, and legal spheres I'll be the first to offer the strong anti-hal arguments. Does that make it easier to understand? All fictional characters need not be argued against. Some apparently do. Believers cant keep their mouths shut and their noses out of places they don't belong.

Yep, that is clear enough. It is the Christian intrusion into public affairs that is the problem. God has nothing to do with it. I remain skeptical on the power of rational argument to help this problem. Perhaps all that is left to us is to rant about the unreasonableness of living in a society where the medieval mind set of the Constitutionally empowered masses is unphased by the fruits of science or rational argument.

Still, in the interest of keeping straight in my own head, I shouldn't want to mistake a good rant for a rational argument.

[Epimethean]

Though some of the best arguments have a nice acidic seasoning.

[Mister Agenda]

All that and he's just an atheist who doesn't understand the dictionary definition of 'atheist'? That is so sad.

[Minimalist]

Sometimes I get the feeling on this site that god is that dead chimp and everyone wants to make a show of smacking him now that he's dead.

The dead chimp keeps moving.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

All that and he's just an atheist who doesn't understand the dictionary definition of 'atheist'? That is so sad.

Methinks he's a theist that just says he's an atheist so he can approach his retarded religion-based arguemetns from a 'I'm one of you guys, but...' prespective.
He probably also expects to be discriminated against for being a theist, but he didn't understand that the ban-hammer targets idiots who don't follow the rules and/or act like jackasses rather than religiocity.
... if that's a word.

[Epimethean]

He's no chimp, nor does he worship one. The operative vowel is a "u."