Why atheism is a belief.

[goodcake]

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.

Not all atheists try to prove that there isn't a god...however we equate god to "something which fulfils no purpose or function" because god serves no more purpose. You might say "yeah god does serve a purpose because he lays down moral guidelines, or whatever", but equally I could say "yeah so santa serves a purpose, he makes christmas magical and gives kids presents".

Yes I know all atheists don't believe the same thing. It seems that this is the most important tenent of atheism. Not all of a type of any kind of person believes exactly the same, there tends to be major or minor variations. It seems a moot point, but one which must be constantly made.


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.

You are failing to understand that atheists don't believe in god like they don't believe in santa or the tooth fairy, there really isn't any difference. The only difference is that everybody stops believing in santa and the tooth fairy, but some people continue to believe in god into adulthood.

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.

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?

The whole point of you can't disprove a leprechaun/unicorn/fairy argument is to show the theist (when he inevitably says "well you can't DISPROVE god") that you can't disprove any number of made up things.

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.

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.

Many atheists equate fairies with god because they consider them equally likely to be fiction.

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?

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.

Please give a valid reason why there needs to be an alternative to god?

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.

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.

I have no problem with there being nothing out there in place of god, and nothing does not need validation because nothing has no properties and is not anything.

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

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.

Our position is absolutely validated at every turn. Simple fact is, we don't believe because we have not been given sufficient evidence. That is reasonable and valid.

So your base assumption of knowing everthing is a valid one?

---

How ungodly of you.

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