Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Ryantology]

I agree with Chad. The logical conclusions that I have made lead specifically to Christianity. I don't rule out any other explanation and believe that I should question and doubt my stance. But I an quite confident in holding it.

I can't recall a single instance of you actually seriously questioning or doubting your stance. You say you do, presumably to appear less close-minded and dogmatic, but in practice, you just toss out assertions and and insist that you don't have to justify any of them when they are challenged, just like every other dogmatic theist on these forums. Maybe I'm just missing it.

[Rampant.A.I.]

A glance at the last 4 pages of this thread demonstrates an inability to question dogmatic beliefs, and what separates those beliefs from beliefs dismissed as mythology or "superstition."

Which is ironic, coming from a theist, by definition.

But there was no doubt, no questioning of the stance, no reasonable argument for why dogmatic beliefs were special.

Just dismissal of the questions, and when pressed, non-sequitur ad hominem attacks.

[fr0d0]

You're still talking past your audience rather than engaging with it rampy.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You're still talking past your audience rather than engaging with it rampy.

Give me something to engage. What makes your supernatural belief more plausible than other supernatural beliefs?

Why should someone who professes no belief in the supernatural have to disprove an undefined supernatural entity to express a lack of belief in the supernatural?

[fr0d0]

See the other thread where I've already addressed that fully these last two days

I'm on my mobile, it's difficult to link you

[Rampant.A.I.]

See the other thread where I've already addressed that fully these last two days

What thread? As mentioned, if you're incapable for whatever reason of participating in two threads at once, or responding specifically to a thread, opt out.

[fr0d0]

How did God created the universe.

I'm responding on topic in this thread. You want to troll every thread with the same vague question.

You defended your fellow atheist here who stated something unsupportable. Anyone making positive claims has to bear the burden of those claims.

My belief isn't supernatural. I believe in a supernatural entity defined as the Christian God. Why not believe in any absurd idea of the supernatural: because I have the ability to reason what those ideas are, as we can all know what they are.

Is it beyond your intellect to understand the meaning of leprechauns, for example?

Moreover, studying Christian doctrine is an in depth study of the supernatural. It's my subject. So I'm better equipped to consider questions of supernatural origin. Someone ignorant of the field wouldn't be as equipped to consider such problems. Practically, I will be more aware of superstitious practice and able to avoid them. That's my experience.

If you want to dismiss supernatural entities, I would expect you to have some idea why. If you have no reason, then I'm happy to acknowledge your lack of opinion.

[Rampant.A.I.]

How did God created the universe.

I'm responding on topic in this thread. You want to troll every thread with the same vague question.

The questions asked have been reasonable. You express a belief in something you define as by nature as lacking supportive evidence, I ask how your stated belief is parsed from superstition, mythology and fairytales.

You refuse to answer.

You defended your fellow atheist here who stated something unsupportable. Anyone making positive claims has to bear the burden of those claims.

What fellow atheist? What positive claims?

My belief isn't supernatural. I believe in
a supernatural entity defined as the Christian God.

Your belief isn't supernatural, and you believe in a supernatural entity defined as the Christian God. This seems like a redundant statement to me.

You do not believe in the supernatural, yet do believe in the supernatural.

You express a belief in the supernatural, yet cannot explain your disbelief in other supernatural entires, such as unicorns, leprechauns and fairies, without good reason, which you seem unable to provide.

Why not believe in any absurd idea of the supernatural: because I have the ability to reason what those ideas are, as we can all know what they are.

That's a nonsensical statement. Your ability to reason is able to dismiss the supernatural as absurd, and yet you entertain and hold to a belief in the supernatural for [unknown reasons].

Is it beyond your intellect to understand the meaning of leprechauns, for example?

Is it beyond your intellect to understand <I reject supernatural beliefs> except for <supernatural beliefs> which I maintain is a nonsensical distinction?

Moreover, studying Christian doctrine is an in depth study of the supernatural. It's my subject. So I'm better equipped to consider questions of supernatural origin. Someone ignorant of the field wouldn't be as equipped to consider such problems. Practically, I will be more aware of superstitious practice and able to avoid them. That's my experience.

You're speaking to someone degreed in comparative religions, from the time the degree was considered "magic, witchcraft and religion." Your appeal to authority is invalid.

If you want to dismiss supernatural entities, I would expect you to have some idea why.

As equally as I would expect you to have an idea why you reject leprechauns and unicorns, except your reasons for rejecting both and maintaining a belief in the supernatural have yet to be presented.

If you have no reason, then I'm happy to acknowledge your lack of opinion.

So we've come full circle from arguments from opinion to a lack of an opinion, in lieu or compelling evidence.

What evidence is there for your specific deity that does not equally apply to other supernatural entitles?

Why should I believe you are anything but superstitious when you retain such superstitious behavior?

[fr0d0]

1. I don't believe in something that lacks supporting evidence. I believe in something which cannot by definition have objective evidence.

2. I just answered.

3. Read the thread and your 1st response to me

4. I believe in a supernatural entity. I do not believe in superstitious nonsense. No conflict there. Your statement that I have a supernatural belief is nonsensical in itself... It asserts that I have supernatural ability.

5. I just explained why I don't believe in other supernatural entities giving the leprechaun as an example.

6. Intellect is a gift I assume you possess, just like me. With this we can explore any proposal presented. I don't dismiss the supernatural. You do. Your conclusion isn't mine. Your reasoning being.... there is no natural evidence. I'm sorry, that not logical. My reasoning: the theological evidence for God.

7. You studied a few religions superficially. I've done that and also studied one particular religion exhaustively and also as an active participant. You bet I claim authority.

8. You apparently can't read.

9. You claim to have studied comparative religions, yet you have no idea how to distinguish between deity and superficial magic. I find that hard to believe... that you claim ignorance of a subject you claim to have studied.

[Whateverist]

My belief isn't supernatural. I believe in a supernatural entity defined as the Christian God. Why not believe in any absurd idea of the supernatural: because I have the ability to reason what those ideas are, as we can all know what they are.

Perhaps it is just semantics but I am unable to attach meaning to a category of entities that are supernatural. I wonder if you think the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural' would exist in the mind of a god. From some superhuman perspective everything would simply be natural. Existence equals natural. It may be that our perceptual/cognitive array ill equips us to understand what a dog smells or the manner in which a bat experiences the world. But I am pretty sure those things are still natural to them.

Moreover, studying Christian doctrine is an in depth study of the supernatural. It's my subject. So I'm better equipped to consider questions of supernatural origin. Someone ignorant of the field wouldn't be as equipped to consider such problems. Practically, I will be more aware of superstitious practice and able to avoid them. That's my experience.

Good point about being better equipped to avoid superstitious practices - provided you define religious practices as pertaining to real supernatural phenomenon. *rolls eyes*

Seriously though, my stepson who grew up with his atheist mother and I along with his very wooey (but non-xtian) father seems to be drawn like a magnet to every superstition you can imagine.

If you want to dismiss supernatural entities, I would expect you to have some idea why. If you have no reason, then I'm happy to acknowledge your lack of opinion.

The reason I dismiss them is semantic as previously discussed. There is the natural we know and the natural we may not know directly. But I cannot conceive of a categorical unknowable which is in fact entirely undetectable. The only place I experience an intrinsic mystery is in the very nature of first person experience. I see no reason to suppose the mystery that supports consciousness has any physical world correlate. If you do -and if it really is more than a hunch- I would appreciate it if you would point that out. Otherwise I think the jump between inner mystery to outer mystery is entirely unfounded .. and no, I can't give you a reason. It simply isn't a jump I am willing to make without good reason.