Atheists state they do not know there is no god.
Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.
The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. 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.
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.
If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?
If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.
If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.
Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.
Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.
The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. 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.
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.
If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?
If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.
If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.
Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.
