North Korea 'executes Christians'

[Dotard]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in God

With no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

You looking for proof of a negative?

[Anto Kennedy]

I know there's bound to be proof that atheists don't believe in God.

No evidence that God doesn't exist though, which makes atheism an irrational leap of faith.

[Edwardo Piet]

Atheism is the absence of a belief in God

With no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

Don't add the "a" in there either, with the "a" it's agnosticism, an undecided, neutral position. Without the "a" it's atheism, a position without any basis in fact.

You want evidence?

Theists are those who believe in a personal God or gods.

Deists are those who believe in a non-personal God or gods.

Atheists don't believe in God(s) at all.

It's the definitions, this is semantics here, labels. What do you mean by evidence in this context? We're talking labels here.

How do you define it then??

I know there's bound to be proof that atheists don't believe in God.

No evidence that God doesn't exist though, which makes atheism an irrational leap of faith.

You're playing the reverse burden of proof there matey.

I have no evidence for God, so I need evidence to believe he exists, as with the FSM.

I also have no evidence that God positively doesn't exist, indeed. But neither do I that the FSM doesn't...

Do you? Do you have evidence that the FSM, doesn't exist? Can you prove a negative, and prove that the 'negative proof' fallacy doesn't apply to the FSM for some bizarre reason? Can you break logic there?

No?? Well, I guess by your logic you are making an irrational leap of faith for not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster then, because there's 'no evidence that it doesn't exist'.

Or, no? You don't think the logic applies? Do you believe God has evidence then, unlike the FSM, so the burden of proof is on us atheists? If so...what evidence does God have?

EvF

[Dotard]

No evidence that God doesn't exist though, which makes atheism an irrational leap of faith.

And this guy would agree with you. --->




---
Stupid statements deserve stupid responses.

[Anto Kennedy]

There's nothing wrong with being irrational though. Since when did rational = good & irrational = bad.

We're just monkeys, there comes a time when you just gotta scratch you're head and smell you're pee.

You want evidence?

Yeh, if we want to be rational about it.

No offence mate, but this FSM rant is getting old pretty quick.

If you can't prove that God doesn't exist just leave it at that, no ones going to morally judge you based on how irrational you are for not believing that God exist without any evidence that this is true.

[allan175]

You want evidence?

Yeh, if we want to be rational about it.

No offence mate, but this FSM rant is getting old pretty quick.

If you can't prove that God doesn't exist just leave it at that, no ones going to morally judge you based on how irrational you are for not believing that God exist without any evidence that this is true.

I don't tend to like the FSM argument, but it does have its place and this is definitely one of those places.

I have no reason to believe in god(s), unicorns, FSM(s), fairies, witches, ghosts....(the list goes on). You, and many others, have arbitrarily decided that one or more of those do exist! The rationality of our stance is that if one or more of those was shown to be real we'd accept that and change our viewpoint.

As for other comments on the thread, while some atheists seem to think getting rid of religion from the world would cure all problems, that doesn't have anything to do with atheism.

[Tiberius]

No evidence that God doesn't exist though, which makes atheism an irrational leap of faith.

I agree with you that there is no evidence that God doesn't exist; the existence of such evidence would be illogical since you cannot prove a negative unless you are omniscient (we aren't).

However, there is likewise no evidence that God does exist.

To make a leap of faith, someone has to make a positive claim about something in light of a lack of evidence, in this case either that "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist".

Neither atheist nor theist makes this claim on a purely semantic level, since theism is the belief in one or more gods, and atheism is the disbelief in gods. Beliefs are not claims of absolute knowledge, neither are they positive claims of knowledge, they are personal opinions on a specific subject.

If you make the positive claim that "God exists" or "God does not exist" you are being gnostic about your theism/atheism respectively. Gnostic theists & atheists, unless they can present verifiable evidence for their claims of knowledge, are making a leap of faith as you say.

One could further make the argument that since there is no evidence to suggest that God exists, even agnostic theism itself is a leap of faith, and that agnostic atheism is the only logical position to take until evidence appears to the contrary.

[Anto Kennedy]

I have no reason to believe in god(s), unicorns, FSM(s), fairies, witches, ghosts....(the list goes on). You, and many others, have arbitrarily decided that one or more of those do exist!

I have said quite a number of times that I do believe they ALL exist. So don't jump to conclusions.

---

they are personal opinions on a specific subject.

So why are certain personal opinions irrational and others rational?

and that agnostic atheism is the only logical position to take until evidence appears to the contrary.

Well there ya go. Atheism is irrational.

[Tiberius]

So why are certain personal opinions irrational and others rational?

I explained that.

Well there ya go. Atheism is irrational.

No, atheism is a disbelief in gods. Given that there is no evidence for gods, such a claim is not irrational. Non-positive claims (such as atheism) are only irrational when there is sufficient evidence for the positive claim. If someone uses atheism as a positive claim, they are doing so irrationally. However "positive atheism" does not bear any resemblance to atheism in general, which is merely a disbelief in gods.

You are taking a very specific definition of atheism and then (illogically) using it to determine something about the general definition.

It's like saying "George Bush was a useless president, therefore all presidents are useless". Just because one use of a word is irrational does not mean the word in general (or the concept) is irrational.

[Anto Kennedy]

which is merely a disbelief in gods.

I thought it was a belief in the non-existence of gods. Okay, let's be specific.

Positive atheism is irrational.