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

[salamenfuckyou]

If God was a female I probably would worship her.
you see I got this fetish for dominatrices. you know all that BDSM, submissive stuff and shit. whipping me to submission.

[Bob Kelso]

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Dishonest? Really Wooters? Dishonest? With a post such as the one here you have zero, let me repeat fucking ZERO, right to call atheists dishonest. You lying fuck.

I'm not even going to take the time out of my day to explain to you why you're being a dishonest piece of shit because you know why, and if you don't then you're a moron to boot.

[KichigaiNeko]

Good grief fr0d0! Haven't you been on this forum long enough to answer your own poll?

---

Agree with Aral Wooters. You come across as rather silly with that post.

[Cyberman]

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it.

A- = without; lacking
theism = belief in god/s

Why is this so hard?

Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position.

Gnosticism/agnosticism refer to what one knows or claims to know. Theism/atheism relates to one's beliefs concerning god/s. The two terms are not mutually exclusive and, in point of fact, often used complementarily.

It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Know why atheists - at least according to the 'standard position', which all atheists share - have no burden of proof? Because they're not trying to prove anything.

[Esquilax]

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

So, what you're saying is that we should have a lack of belief for absolutely no reason at all? That we shouldn't have logical reasons why we don't accept religious claims? I know for a fucking fact that if this were the case and we didn't give reasons for our position, you would turn right the fuck around and bray "see? These atheists just have no reason at all for what they do and don't believe! How vapid!"

Being able to adequately express the thought process behind the decisions we've come to doesn't mean we're making claims and have a burden of proof, Chad. It just means we can goddamn remember how we came to our positions; having reasons why we think one position is wrong doesn't suddenly mean we're taking the exact opposite position, and we've explained this shit to you people too often for it to have escaped your notice.

You cluck about bait and switch tactics, but don't think it's not clear how you're playing both sides of the table.

[Ryantology]

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Dishonest? Really Wooters? Dishonest? With a post such as the one here you have zero, let me repeat fucking ZERO, right to call atheists dishonest. You lying fuck.

I'm not even going to take the time out of my day to explain to you why you're being a dishonest piece of shit because you know why, and if you don't then you're a moron to boot.

No shit. And all the while, it is wrong of us to demand that people making positive god claims satisfy that burden of proof. It's extraordinarily, and 100% characteristically, dishonest.

[Faith No More]

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

Are you trolling?

Surely, you must be trolling...

[Whateverist]

I never responded to this poll since it obviously was designed to force one to profess positive belief in relation to whatever this 'god' thing may be. Meh. Yeah, I prefer to say I don't believe in gods. That strikes me as the truest way to put it. By default it is true enough to say I therefore believe no gods exist. But that might make it sound like I have evidence or an argument against the existence of god. But nothing could be further from the truth. I got nothing. Oh, I have my hunch what is behind people's belief in god. But I can't begin to imagine what a god would be if it isn't entirely a psychological phenomenon. So I wouldn't know how to begin to argue against the existence of a god whose existence I can't even begin to conceive of.

[max-greece]

I totally understand your frustration chas.

I made the statement in another thread that atheists here make sure everyone understands that atheism is a lack of belief, and they called me a liar and demanded I make a poll.

The whole "atheism is simply a lack of belief" card turns out to be a lie the minute atheists start to defend their lack of belief by giving reasons for it. Once you start making claims for or against an idea then you have stopped being agnostic (that strangely forgotten word) and have started to advocate a position. It's a dishonest bait-and-switch tactic to avoid the burden of proof.

That might have been true if we didn't believe in your god - but we don't merely not believe in your god - we don't believe in any of them.

We don't even have an order of Gods in terms of those we don't believe in most.

Theists get confused when they talk to atheists as the conversations are usually focused on their particular god.

[Ryantology]

I believe that there are no gods, due to the fact that no evidence points to the existence of even one of them. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in most things, but ten thousand years of constant searching turning up absolutely zilch speaks of at least one exception. I believe there are no unicorns or leprechauns either, and for less-justifiable reasons (those myths are much younger and have failed far fewer tests of scrutiny).

God beliefs don't even have that weak foundation. Peeling back enough layers of any theist justification ultimately leads to the only actual source of any religious belief: the believer's desire for their beliefs to be true.