Why atheism is a belief.

[Mister Agenda]

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 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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Neither atheism nor theism have any tenets.

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?

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'.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?