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

[Silver]

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?
Me: Because there is no proof that your god exists.

[*Deidre*]

I view it like this:

2+2=4 (objective, we all agree on this, there is nothing to "believe" about it)

Faith or "believing" in a deity is just that, a belief with no evidence. No objective evidence. The Bible isn't evidence.

I wouldn't tell a religious person he/she is "wrong" to believe in a god, as that is their choice. But a religious person would be "wrong" to demonstrate certainty that a god exists based on his/her beliefs and supposition.

[Coffee Jesus]

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).

You forget. Unicorns and leprechauns aren't invisible.

There might be invisible unicorns.

[Rampant.A.I.]

[fr0d0]

And you are shouldering the burden of proof claiming that there could be possible transferable evidence of the supernatural. That's pure illogic right there.

Way to miss the point and shift the burden of proof again.

So, before you launch into another lie-rade, do you think "aha! Gotcha! There is NO evidence anyone can present to support this claim!" Is a compelling argument?

You say repeatedly that your faith "is rational" then refuse to elaborate further. Why is your specific entity, not just "the supernatural" completely immune from necessary evidence, unlike any reasonable belief?

Do you then believe every reported encounter with ghosts, imps, Djinn, Leprechauns, Unicorns, Fairies, and other supernatural entities? If not, why not?

You said yourself the supernatural doesn't need transferable evidence to be believable.

Is this a joke?

So do you admit defeat that you cannot actually prove the non existence of something supernatural?

Thanks. That's great.

I never have refused to explain how my faith is rational. Let's see you run away now for the THIRD time of asking what you want to address.

You repeat these meaningless tirades against some imaginary opponent whilst avoiding any direct confrontation.

How skeptical of you.

---

Actually, that's not exactly right. What you're really saying is "It is a valid statement with real meaning BECAUSE you can't prove it's not real". So, equally, are statements insisting upon the existence of unicorns and leprechauns.

Nice dodge

I make no such claim at all. Never have.

You made a ludicrous claim. We know that. Because you talk bullshit doesn't mean everyone else must equally be talking bullshit.

You can't prove its not real. Dead right. I can't prove independently that it's real either. Comprendes? Yeah that's right... You don't get to dismiss your opposition by taking bollocks.

Wise up.

[Whateverist]

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.

Good point. "God or no god" loses sight of "which god"?

For that matter it overlooks "what's a god"? I mean, sure I guess I know what one may be in the sense that I know what a kraken, minataur or mermaid is supposed to be. But folklore isn't my long suit and it hardly seems fair or relevant to appeal to my knowledge of folklore when discussing what we think is real.

[Bob Kelso]

ten thousand years of constant searching turning up absolutely zilch speaks of at least one exception.

Classic fallacy. Because something is unique doesn't mean it's any less likely to exist.

Have any evidence for your 'unique' something?

And you are shouldering the burden of proof claiming that there could be possible transferable evidence of the supernatural. That's pure illogic right there.

Do you really have any room to talk about illogic?

[MindForgedManacle]

Believer: I believe in God.
Atheist: You're wrong.
Believer: Why am I wrong?
Me: Because there is no proof that your god exists.

-Ahem-

Believer: Here's a logical proof for God's existence:

1) If God (a being who exists in all possible worlds) exists in some possible world, then God exists.

2) God exists in some possible world.

3) Therefore God exists.

Discussions on the burden of proof are often just trifling over nothing. There are definitely times it's useful, but typically only when an argument from ignorance or incredulity is being made. If a theist presents an argument to we atheists (and arguments are evidence), then if we are to be rational in our rejection of (or abstention from, if you prefer) theism, we must have good reason to reject said arguments. In such situations, talk of burden of proof just makes no sense. After all, consider this:

Believer: I believe in God.

Atheist: Why?

Believer: Because the fine-tuning of the universe for life is exponentially more likely on theism than on naturalism, and thus constitutes a strong probabilistic argument for theism. [This does in fact seem to be true]

Atheist: ...You have the burden of proof!

Clearly discussion of the burden of proof because a side issue once the evidence has been presented.

[Coffee Jesus]

Believer: Because the fine-tuning of the universe for life is exponentially more likely on theism than on naturalism, and thus constitutes a strong probabilistic argument for theism. [This does in fact seem to be true]

Maybe a topic for another thread, but there is a smidgen of evidence for one of the multiverse theories that explains this fine-tuning.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is a simpler and better supported explanation.

Ahh, here it is. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-universe/

[Ryantology]

Nice dodge

I make no such claim at all. Never have.

You made a ludicrous claim. We know that. Because you talk bullshit doesn't mean everyone else must equally be talking bullshit.

The only real claim I'm making is that 'supernatural' and 'imaginary' are, by all appearances, synonymous terms. Not that it's definitely so, just that 100% of the evidence so far points that way. You are insisting this is not true, which places the burden squarely on you. Only, you think it doesn't, because you insist that the supernatural is a special category that gets a special exception to the rules every other claim has to follow. Why? Because fraudo said so.

You can't prove its not real. Dead right. I can't prove independently that it's real either. Comprendes? Yeah that's right... You don't get to dismiss your opposition by taking bollocks.

Wise up.

I don't need to talk bollocks to dismiss you. You have a position that is worthless and has no explanatory value relative to anything at all. There's literally nothing to dismiss. I can't very well disprove anything that you're very close to certainly just making up.