Why I Don't Believe in Atheism

[The Valkyrie]

When you say 'I don't believe in atheism' you sound really stupid. You know why? Because all atheism is, is: 'a lack of belief in god'. So what you are effectively saying is 'I don't believe in you not believing in my god'. Atheism is a lack of a belief and therefore it is impossible to hold it as a belief.

You do believe in your lack of belief in God. To deny it would be really stupid.

I don't believe in 'a lack of belief in God' because that would be really stupid since the proof in the opening post proves having a lack of belief would be obviously wrong since nature proves the 'uncreated Creator' Whom we call God.

So your claims, which have been debunked thoroughly, many times, is proof to you?

I suppose to the followers of Odin ALLFather that argument would work in their favour, too.

So, if we're to believe this argument on behalf of all religions there must be a LOT of gods.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't believe in 'a lack of belief in God' because that would be really stupid since the proof in the opening post proves having a lack of belief would be obviously wrong since nature proves the 'uncreated Creator' Whom we call God.

Natire proves nothing. The fallacy you're engaging in is begging the question; you're doing this in a two-fold manner, firstly when you look at nature and see proof of a creator, and secondly when you claim that creator is specifically the deity you happen to worship.

Also, adding "therefore" to your posts sounds all nice and official, but it doesn't mean your conclusion is logical. Just sayin'.

[Chad32]

For me it is really simply why I don't believe in atheism, because the universe can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, because that which does not exist can't cause anything, since it doesn't exist. We only have evidence of causation from 'something', no evidence to the contrary.

And I don't believe in atheism because the universe(s) could not have always existed because if it (they) had then by definition there would have been an be an infinite regress of cause and effects, so you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. And self-contradictorily, you would never have existed because a past eternity would continue to go on for eternity, thus never reaching this point of existence now.

Therefore, by this evidential reasoning, I conclude nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is Whom I call God. Logical, since we know the uncreated Creator exist, it is incumbent upon us to find out where God reveals Himself personally. The initial caveat is that God is not self-contradictory so only one religion can be the correct one.

And how does an infinite god overcome the problems that an infinite space has?

There isn't really such a thing as nothing. Molecules and such have always been around. However as a christian it would seem you do think the universe came from nothing, because your book says god spoke it into existence. Matter from nothing.

Even if I agree with you that some deistic god had to create the universe, we're no closer to proving the existence of a theistic god like Yahweh.

[Bad Wolf]

You do believe in your lack of belief in God. To deny it would be really stupid.

Clearly you don't understand what atheism is or logic for that matter. When a claim is made, the default and logical position is to withhold belief until the burden of proof is met, that is to say: sufficient evidence is presented for that claim.
Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

Example:

I tell you that I'm good friends with Brad Pitt. Naturally, you are skeptical of my claim, you aren't convinced just by my words and so you don't believe me. That is not to say that you believe that I'm not good friends with Brad Pitt, you just don't believe that I am either. The position you are taking, is the atheist position.
Until I provide evidence of my association with Brad Pitt (maybe some photographs of us together in various locations) you would be perfectly justified in not believing me.

I don't believe in 'a lack of belief in God' because that would be really stupid

Well you do, so I guess that makes you really stupid.

since the proof in the opening post proves having a lack of belief would be obviously wrong since nature proves the 'uncreated Creator' Whom we call God.

You don't get to claim your words as proof of anything. Thats all they were: words.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also --

[MPCADF]

So your claims, which have been debunked thoroughly...

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post. Perhaps you would like to try.

[Foxaèr]

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post.

You have a clear misconception of what proof entails.

[Violet]

So your claims, which have been debunked thoroughly...

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post. Perhaps you would like to try.

Which proof were you interested in having torn to shreds and fed to my besties' dog?

[Bad Wolf]

I haven't seen anywhere in this thread anyone debunked the proof in the opening post. Perhaps you would like to try.

Keep claiming it as 'proof' all you want but it does not make it so. It just makes you appear as an uneducated fool with the discussion and linguistic skills of a five year old. It is a common tactic amongst toddlers to repeat themselves over and over again when they don't get their way.

[MPCADF]

You have a clear misconception of what proof entails.

You haven't supplied any evidence to validate your allegation.