Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[Coffee Jesus]

If it can be faulted, but isn't, it is knowledge. If it can't be faulted, it's pointless babble. Like pretty much everything you say. So follow through on your threat and just fuck off.

I took "cannot be faulted" as an objective property, rather than a statement about whether it could hypothetically be faulted. As in the sentence:

"We assume that the theory of gravitation "can't be faulted" (i.e. is true) because we haven't found fault with it yet."

But enough elaboration, as this is merely my own interpretation of what fr0d0 said.

[TaraJo]

Why don't I believe in god? Simple: I haven't been give sufficient evidence that god or any diety exists. I'm not saying I'm adamantly certain that there is no god because I'm receptive to evidence that he exists, but so far, I haven't seen that evidence.

[Ryantology]

If it can be faulted, but isn't, it is knowledge. If it can't be faulted, it's pointless babble. Like pretty much everything you say. So follow through on your threat and just fuck off.

I took "cannot be faulted" as an objective property, rather than a statement about whether it could hypothetically be faulted. As in the sentence:

"We assume that the theory of gravitation "can't be faulted" (i.e. is true) because we haven't found fault with it yet."

But enough elaboration, as this is merely my own interpretation of what fr0d0 said.

With a more rational person, that would be a reasonable interpretation and I would agree, but that's not what's actually going on here. Fraudo is making the assertion that supernatural things are real and that evidence exists, and further asserts that it is impossible to test the previous assertion in any empirical manner. He is specifically designing his claim (or rather, regurgitating a claim specifically designed this way) so that it can't, even hypothetically, be disproved.

The correct way to interpret what he is saying is "If my claim can't be tested, it can't be faulted, and therefore, it is knowledge".

[Rampant.A.I.]

Basically

[Bob Kelso]

(Yesterday 16:26)fr0d0 Wrote:
Straw man again.

I'm saying the opposite.

"We call what cannot be faulted knowledge. If you can't fault a premise, then you can build on that premise, as long as it stands unrefuted."

The alleged 'straw man' is simply a different way of describing that first sentence. You do consider "assertions which cannot be tested" valid knowledge. Someone else even bolded it above my post. That's why it caught my attention. It is a bold and proud declaration of cognitive failure.

And so it boils down to you not bothering to read.

Nice.

I expected no more.

I'm tired of you clowns.

Summon me when you think of something interesting to say.

*yawn*

You're tired?

Begone simple bitch, I think we're all well and tired of your Dance of the Dodge.

[Ryantology]

look all around you for evidence of him. Everything which exists/ irrefutable logic of his existence attested by believers.

Could the supernatural cause leave any natural evidence that it was the creator: no. You could never know.

Well, there you go. I couldn't disprove your assertions, but you went and did it for me. Thanks for your 'irrefutable logic'.

[Brian37]

Now that you've been duped into opening this thread, you might as well help us with our little survey to find out your opinion of what atheism is all about.

Thanks for your time.

Love,
Me

Lets put this title question in proper context.

There is a past, present and future to be considered.

As far as the past and present, everything that humans have claimed points to humans making god/s up, not an actual god existing. Secondly, the only place science observes cognition is in biological evolution. Thought, is like speed, it is not an actual thing, but a abstract description of a material process in motion. Like a car speeding. No car, no speed to observe. No physical brain, no thoughts to be had. "We" are our brains in motion. When our brains die, we die.

As far as the future is concerned, and strictly semantically in word only, at least for me "technically" we can't know what future evidence might uncover.

So I currently flat out am an atheist about all past and present claims because there is no scientific evidence for a non material being and not worth considering. I am only "technically" agnostic about the future, although I find the likelihood of a god existing highly improbable and science is on top of that saying a god is not needed anyway.

If one can accept that an ocean god named Poseidon is not needed to cause a Hurricane, and a sky god named Thor is not needed to make lightening, I see no reason that life or the universe would need a cognition for those things to occur either.

Stephen Hawkins "A god is not required".