I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

No, i just disagree with a common believed atheist position. I must admit it fascinates me that most seem to think I don't get it as I don't agree. Or to get it do I need to agree?

If you can't accept the simple fact that atheism isn't a belief, isn't a religion, isn't a world view and that it simply means without theism, then we have nothing more to say to each other.

Call it what you want, believe what you want. You're wrong just the same.
Personally I think you're in denial. You can't accept the fact that atheism simply means without theism, but that's your problem not mine.

Why do you think I'm saying atheism is a belief? I've said atheism is the logical conclusion of believing materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism) to be true. If you don't accept that this is a belief, then youre right in that we have nothing more to say to each other.

I think most atheists don't like to admit their depedence on any belief, probably to maintain some semblance of objectivity. Why is it that only atheists believe that their belief is not a belief?

You may believe it's logical to consider only the material exists, as this is all you can prove. It's not a line I choose to follow as it essentially presumes its conclusion. Many atheists think this is the only honest view to take, I see no reason to consider only that which has been proven to exist are the only things that exists, as you provide no explanations of why this must be true, so it's a belief.

Stomp, yell, claim that you only lack belief if you want. Why not just be honest?

---

Perhaps the leprechauns, unicorns et al analogy should not be commonly asserted to show the likelihood of a god?

It's not used to show the likelihood of a god. Rather to show the similarity of the kind of reasoning it takes to disbelieve the two ludicrous claims.

Obviously people seem to miss that and take it personal.

There's no difference at all. The assessment of the reasoning stems from being unable to determine any probability, therefore it's 0 or "ludicrous". The difference between a leprechaun and a god is one is defined and has no purpose, the other is undefined and has a conceptual purpose. To assess something is ludicrious suggests you must have a fair idea of what is true. The floor is yours. But of course, stating something is ludicrious is not making a claim of any sort is it? Push off that burden.

By taking it personal do you mean, not agreeing with your persepctive and calling you out on it?

---

If you don't believe you have the required evidence to account for something, then it's silly to believe that you have any idea what is, or what could be.

This is a stupid thing to say.

If someone says "there is a purple leopard in my kitchen"

If you then look in the kitchen and find no leopard, purple or otherwise. It does not mean that you do not understand what a purple leopard is or could be.

Having no evidence for something means that someone has made a positive claim and that claim is not supported by the evidence.

You missed something here. Perhaps you should use an example where you use something unknown and undefined (as opposed to purple and leopard) to illustrate something wwhich is unknown and undefined.

If you claim to know what a god could be, let me know what that is and where it will be.

---

Is it a superstition to think that I don't know why existence is, or that you don't know?

If you know, present evidence. Otherwise try not to misrepresent my position based on your inability to understand it.

I understand your position quite well, no matter how incoherently and evasively you present it. All this intellectually bankrupt semantic prestidigitation is a failing attempt at dodging your burden of proof.

Perhaps you understand my position, although everything you write indicates otherwise. There's nothing to dodge as I don't claim anything. I just don't dismiss as you do. I make no claims to know, so I do not claim either way. In the absence of proof you choose to side with the negative, despite being unable to propose any valid alternatives. It's a very odd position to take which makes no sense. Particualry as many are compelled to porpose 'natural' causes despite the absence of proof to justify this. It's too transparent for it to be an effective or worthwhile position.

How many times have I called people out on this proof which offers a 'natural' solution. So far, the best I've got is "go read a science book". I've read many, so will need direction to determine which scienctific book is the atheist's bible, so far I can only guess "The God Delusion", but this was just full of rant and wank.