Annoying Atheist Arguments

[genkaus]

Your number 4 is misleading and you are making yourself look like a Poe. No atheist says that atheism is not a position or lack of a position. They say it is lack of belief. Your argument has to do with position, and it really looks like you placed that word there simply so you could argue it. A little silly, in my opinion. It is a lack of belief, which is not the same as disbelief. From the free dictionary, disbelief is "Refusal or reluctance to believe" Try again.

Notice that number 4 addresses both belief and position arguments - both of which I've seen being made - one of which you are making right now.

Number 5 is stupid too. When people question the validity of perception and reasoning by capable people, they are being intellectually dishonest. It is misuse of philosophical concepts like existence in order to hold on to a ridiculous notion that atheists must work by faith. I have faith in a lot of things. I don't have fucking faith in a god that does not exist. So, number five is irrelevant, inaccurate and supportive of an extremely annoying habit of using pseudo-logic to debate.

This would be a scenario where that particular argument is valid. My point specifically addressed where it is not valid.

---

Why the hell did you post this at almoust 2 am?

Because I don't live in the same time-zone and its not 2 am here.

---

It's not my business to go and preach to theists about being an atheist. Those responses have sprung from what theist usually start spouting and frankly, that discussion is old. So the day you find theists who come with new evidence and arguments regarding their particular faith and why it is the Truest Faith™, then I will change my counterarguments.

All they ever do is re-heat the same old shit and you want me to be original.

Fuck that. They aren't worth the effort.

This post is not about changing counter-arguments or finding new ones. Rather its about the correct application of existing ones.