I can feel your anger

[Faith No More]

Why is it ironic? The only high ground I take is admitting I don't know.

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

Claiming the other side is irrational is trying to take the intellectual high ground, however, most of the irony lies in your condemnation of others for their self-righteous attitude while simultatneously prattling on with an air of self-righteousness.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

A validated reason to disbelieve is the complete lack of evidence to show that god is real.

Jog on, for fucks sake.

[Selliedjoup]

Interesting that your whole approach consists of denying and abusing, but consistently lack any ability to rationalise what you consider to believe to be true. Or don't you consider anything? That's my guess.

You'd have been perfect for the Spanish inquisition with your traits, shame you missed out?

Like most other atheists I deny the existence of any god due the dearth of evidence. I do have a rationalization that supports my position.

Consider an extinction event that wiped out humanity. Also consider that at some point in the future evolution gives rise to another sentient and reasoning species. This species could rediscover the same facts of existence humanity has, but would be unable to recreate humanity's gods and holy texts. This does not bode well for the plausibility of any god claim.

Agreed that you have a rationalisation that supports your position, as do theists. Why is yours correct?

It depends if a jesus equivalent came along or not, the species may discover the same facts, but depending on the evolved senses the facts my differ significantly or only slightly. Who knows.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Like most other atheists I deny the existence of any god due the dearth of evidence.

Sorry, that is an incorrect characterisation of my position and that of most atheists I know. I do NOT reject the existence of God(s). I am unable to believe due to a lack of credible evidence. I concede the possibility of error,no matter how unlikely I think that might be. The difference may seem a subtle one,but it is important to me. In asserting only "I disbelieve' I make no claims ,and attract no burden of proof.

[Selliedjoup]

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

---

What 'validated means' do I need when I respond, " I don't believe your claim. Please provide me with demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic to support it", when a theists claims a god exists?

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one has the active belief that a god exists, or they do not have that belief.

Atheism is simply not having the belief that a god exists. It is not necessarily the belief that a god does not exist.

You don't require any validated means to state you don't believe in something, something can be true and you can still disbelieve it.

It's when atheists that claim to possess some form of truth by disbelieving when it's simply a disbelief. Many seem to have constructed a worldview/set of beliefs, that rationalises disbelief, but it holds no more value than those who do believe.

I don't agree at all that belief is binary, some days I may have a 1 others a 0. Conversely, my disbelief is sometimes on 1 or 0. Most times my belief is 0 and my disbelief is also on 0.

This argument seems to be solely focused from a religious person's perspective, so it's did that many atheists present it.

"It is not necessarily the belief that a god does not exist" concept seems to be a common view amongst atheists. E.g Dawkins claims this, however I don't consider that he actually believe this to be true, or is is a truly disingenuous person.

---

Why is it ironic? The only high ground I take is admitting I don't know.

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

Claiming the other side is irrational is trying to take the intellectual high ground, however, most of the irony lies in your condemnation of others for their self-righteous attitude while simultatneously prattling on with an air of self-righteousness.

Yes but I'm only self-righteous in claiming I don't know and neither do you. If you can prove that you know, I will be quit my self-righteous tone.

---

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

A validated reason to disbelieve is the complete lack of evidence to show that god is real.

Jog on, for fucks sake.

Why do you think that it must be knowable? Did science tell you anything that does not exist is unknowable? or that as it's unknowable it does not exsit?

I hate jogging, prefer mountain biking. So mountain bike on would have been more appropriate.

I'm just interested to see if any atheist can remove them self far enough from their worldview to rationalise it for a non-atheist.

---

Like most other atheists I deny the existence of any god due the dearth of evidence.

Sorry, that is an incorrect characterisation of my position and that of most atheists I know. I do NOT reject the existence of God(s). I am unable to believe due to a lack of credible evidence. I concede the possibility of error,no matter how unlikely I think that might be. The difference may seem a subtle one,but it is important to me. In asserting only "I disbelieve' I make no claims ,and attract no burden of proof.

How are you able to determine the probability of a god? How many known knowns, unknown uknowns etc are there?

What would the evidence be (or should it be), if a god existed?

---

Indeed. I have never borne a child nor given birth. Not out of some active attempts to prevent carrying a child, but simply because, as a male, I lack the necessary equipment to gestate. By the same token, I have never believed in gods nor worshipped same. Not out of some active attempts to deny their existence, but simply because, as an atheist, I lack the necessary belief to engender such faith.

I honestly don't know how much more simple we can make this and still be able to communicate.

Doesn't matter how simple you make it, either they refuse to accept it or they're really fucking stupid.

Ha my favourite the Richard Dawkins school of logic.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Oh, the irony.

Why is it ironic? The only high ground I take is admitting I don't know.

Atheists disbelieve in a god, and then assert it's rational to due so, but lack any validated means to disbelieve. It's as rational as saying a god does exist.

All you are demonstrating here is your complete disdain for reason and rationality, which puts you in the category of "unreasonable" and "irrational". Either you agree to abide by the principles of reasoned, rational discussion, or you do not. If you do not -- and you appear to not -- then there is no point in anyone engaging you at all. You are cheating. Reasonable folks don't like a cheater.


Quoting from a logician on another forum:

Only someone not familiar with formal logic would draw that incorrect assumption. It's the existentially positive assertion that bears the burden of proof. An unlimited existentially negative assertion can't be proved, so bears no such burden. (It's just a silly statement, but it bears no burden of proof.)

And from an online Philosophy of Religion textbook:

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/p...-Proof.htm

'Here's what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative:

"Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative.... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing." If I say, "Anything is possible" I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things that cannot properly be doubted. “'

Please, no more of this silly refusal to abide by the principles of reasoned discussion.

---

Like most other atheists I deny the existence of any god due the dearth of evidence. I do have a rationalization that supports my position.

Consider an extinction event that wiped out humanity. Also consider that at some point in the future evolution gives rise to another sentient and reasoning species. This species could rediscover the same facts of existence humanity has, but would be unable to recreate humanity's gods and holy texts. This does not bode well for the plausibility of any god claim.

Agreed that you have a rationalisation that supports your position, as do theists. Why is yours correct?

It depends if a jesus equivalent came along or not, the species may discover the same facts, but depending on the evolved senses the facts my differ significantly or only slightly. Who knows.

Ours is not a rationalization. Ours is the empirical observation of the constant, consistent, unbroken utter absence of any encounter with, or evidence of, such a being.

---

Interesting that your whole approach consists of denying and abusing, but consistently lack any ability to rationalise what you consider to believe to be true. Or don't you consider anything? That's my guess.

We don't have to believe in anything to see through your shell games and superstitions.

You'd have been perfect for the Spanish inquisition with your traits, shame you missed out?

It pleases me to see a theotard making sad attempts to insult by making comparisons with his own. It lets me know that they know just how bad they really are.

---

Claiming to be right without justification seems to be another shared trait of some atheists and theists.

I respect these theists more as at least they follow a code, some atheists read a few books, use some flawed arguments and claim to possess 'truth'. All very dire.

I call Straw Man. WHO are you claiming does this? Names and citations or it's bullshit. WHO claims to "possess 'truth'"?

I think any atheist who attempts to portray their views as 'correct' and belittles any non-atheist as deluded simply because they don't hold the same view is arrogant.

IT is not only because they don't hold the same view. it is because they hold a view based upon superstition and fairy tale stories and without a shred of evidence. Another straw man.

Somehow Hawking's belief transcends what it is, it's just another person's belief. If people think it holds more weight, this is where scientists begin to replace ministers/priests, which is in itself, ironic.

I could care less what Hawking says. Your attacking him makes me laugh.

Also, while I agree with a lot of what militant atheists do; at least in their doggedness at stopping religion from encroaching on government and law, sometimes it goes a little too extremist.

In case you hadn't figured out yet, cupcake, we are at war here. Very much like the Cold War.

By which I mean, when outright propaganda and lies are used, it takes away from what the movement should be about.

WHAT propaganda are you claiming? WHAT are you claiming is lies? Strawman much?

Plus you have the victims who go into a religious debate armed with this piece of info, which turns out to be completely untrue.

WHO???? WHAT piece of info? I don't have a problem with honest mistakes, but the vast majority -- and I mean like 99.999%, if I have seen ANY on the atheist side, which I really can't recall even a single instance of at the moment -- of the deliberate use of bullshit and dishonest tactics I have ever seen has been on the theistic side.

I don't like self-righteous people in general,

You must hate yourself, then.

however, it is pretty difficult to assign that label to any one group of people, when you think about it. The majority of us are self-righteous to some degree. It's a very dominant human trait, which has its uses. It is also a trait that I think will die out in time, as we evolve socially and create more advanced supporting technologies. As for now, don't let it frustrate you too much, there are more productive things you could ponder on.

At least some of us -- and by that I mean the vast majority of atheists and agnostics I have encountered -- TRY to be intellectually honest and genuine, and not fall into distorted thinking or logical fallacies, and correct ourselves when our errors are pointed out. You all seem to be incapable of that in your desperation to hang on to your superstitions and shove them down our throats.

[Selliedjoup]

The points you make are trivial and verge on irrelevant. You just seem caught up in being angry, or is this just your online persona? Bit trite and dull I'm afraid.

The only thing I'll address are the following as these are the only relevant things I think you wrote:

Ours is the empirical observation of the constant, consistent, unbroken utter absence of any encounter with, or evidence of, such a being.

WHO claims to "possess 'truth'

If you act as if the lack of evidence allows you to to propose a god does not exist, then in the absence of any evidence, you may as well claim to posses the truth. This discounts the possibility of the unknown/unknowable.

The only amusing thing was your continual misquoting.

[CliveStaples]

A validated reason to disbelieve is the complete lack of evidence to show that god is real.

Jog on, for fucks sake.

This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?

[Norfolk And Chance]

A validated reason to disbelieve is the complete lack of evidence to show that god is real.

Jog on, for fucks sake.

This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?

I have no belief.

[Napoléon]

This might seem glib, but why should I believe that disbelief is the proper response to a lack of evidence? Do you have evidence for that belief?

There is lack of evidence for bigfoot, thor, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, unicorns etc but I guarantee you don't feel the need to believe in them do you.

Not believing in something due to lack of evidence is the only rational position to take.

*edit* and yes, it isn't a belief as Norfolk said, it's a lack of belief.