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

[fr0d0]

In rumpy pumpys mind, nothing is different from anything else.

[nogodchick]

It mystifies me that so many intelligent people swallow this hocus pocus. I think even Einstein was a believer, FFS. Talk about blind faith.

[Rampant.A.I.]

In rumpy pumpys mind, nothing is different from anything else.

Whatever that means, other than that you can't provide reasoning what distinguishes belief in the supernatural from belief in supernatural entities, which you claim are not the same, nor a belief in any given supernatural entity with no evidence from beliefs in any other supernatural entity with no evidence.

So I've given you good reason why the concept if God is different to myths. But you ignore, not challenge that reasoning. Noted.

I missed that part. Could you link me to where you did this?

Still can't provide this, can you?

All you've got is

And



"Except for unicorns and leprechauns, just dismiss those out of hand."

[Chad32]

I believe there's no such thing as a "Perfect Being". After that all bets are off.

Certainly not one who is self proclaimed jealous and wrathful. Jealousy is not a virtue.

[Chas]

honestly if atheist cant disprove a god that has been give traits that do not match observation like rising from the dead then said atheist needs to keep the hole under his nose shut. But, then again these types don't talk out of that hole do they.

Gods with contradictory attibutes clearly don't exist, but that hardly exhausts the list of proposed gods. I'm very interested in seeing your proof that gods don't rise from the dead.

No proof required until a god has been shown to actually exist.

[fr0d0]

you can't provide reasoning what distinguishes belief in the supernatural from belief in supernatural entities, which you claim are not the same, nor a belief in any given supernatural entity with no evidence from beliefs in any other supernatural entity with no evidence.

Still not bothering to read then rumpy

Who the hell cares? ... Is the point.

Your question is totally irrelevant

Problem: supernatural entities do not exist in nature
Question from moron: why are they different in this respect

[MJ the Skeptical]

You might as well have put 'don't' instead of 'doesn't' in your title. Your grammar should match such a fallacious question begging title and poll.

[Rampant.A.I.]

you can't provide reasoning what distinguishes belief in the supernatural from belief in supernatural entities, which you claim are not the same, nor a belief in any given supernatural entity with no evidence from beliefs in any other supernatural entity with no evidence.

Still not bothering to read then rumpy

Who the hell cares? ... Is the point.

You claim your belief in one specific supernatural entity is rational, and belief in other supernatural entities is irrational, but cannot substantiate why.

Your question is totally irrelevant

Problem: supernatural entities do not exist in nature
Question from moron: why are they different in this respect

It's perfectly relevant, and throwing a fit shows how uncomfortable you are that you dismiss any given supernatural entities out of hand as irrational superstition, yet define belief in your specific supernatural entity as "rational."

You do the exact same this you moan about atheists doing: reject supernatural claims lacking evidence.

This entire thread is dedicated to a special pleading argument demanding evidence to disbelieve in the supernatural, when you yourself don't have any evidence to disbelieve supernatural claims you reject.

Congrats on the failed thread, and showing just how fallacious your reasoning is.

[fr0d0]

Still not bothering to read then rumpy

Who the hell cares? ... Is the point.

You claim your belief in one specific supernatural entity is rational, and belief in other supernatural entities is irrational, but cannot substantiate why.

Can you see what a ridiculous question that is? Why do I have to justify what I don't believe in?

I know the justifications for what I believe in, and can and have supported that in depth on this forum many times.

Tell you what... you pick one of your chosen fantasies and let's go head to head.

---

You do the exact same this you moan about atheists doing: reject supernatural claims lacking evidence.

NO SUPERNATURAL ENTITY CAN POSSIBLY HAVE NATURAL EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE.

I have never made such an error.

By asking the question you are making that error.

Do you understand? You cannot be this stupid.

---

You might as well have put 'don't' instead of 'doesn't' in your title. Your grammar should match such a fallacious question begging title and poll.

Well you've proved that you have little understanding of the English language or logical fallacy, so this would be a rare catch for you.

So how do you think the question should have been worded?
Atheists... why do you believe that God don't exist?
Atheists... why don't you believe that God exists?

1. That's not correct English
2. The point of the question is to discover an actual belief that God doesn't exist. This is what some atheists in another thread were insisting was the majority position, was my opinion. I didn't want to know what atheists 'didn't' believe.

Reply or not, there is no reply.

[Angrboda]

You do the exact same this you moan about atheists doing: reject supernatural claims lacking evidence.

NO SUPERNATURAL ENTITY CAN POSSIBLY HAVE NATURAL EVIDENCE OF ITS EXISTENCE.

I have never made such an error.

This is simply false. A supernatural entity may leave natural evidence. It's being supernatural only means that some aspects of it cannot be explained naturally. A rock that supernaturally produces gold when you rub it would leave plenty of natural evidence in the form of gold. It sounds like you're making up your own definition of the word supernatural. Even God could leave behind natural evidence in the form of healed amputees. I think you're confused.