If I were an Atheist

[Drew_2013]

Not believing in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

Lets see how that works. I don't believe in Santa Claus but I don't believe Santa doesn't exist. I don't believe in fairies but I don't believe fairies don't exist because that's different. This is classic atheist logic.

God doesn't exist. Devil There, are you happy?

I'm glad you stand behind what you believe...was it that hard?

There's no planning or design in the way meltwater flows down my hillside...and yet, the path it takes is not random. I certainly don't see any need for special pleading. Do you?

I would argue it is random. Does it follow the same path every time?

I'm not sure why you have issues with this...do you think the meltwater on my hill (or my hill) has been designed so that the water takes a certain path? Or, do you think that the water -does not, or cannot or could not- take a certain path if it hadn't been designed (or the water hadn't been designed) to do so? Hell, look at yourself and the position espoused here. Am I to believe that the only way that you could arrive here, posting this non-random opinion.....is that you have been designed to do so? Or do you, even in your own ignorant worldview with regards to this particular issue, accept that random variables are capable of producing a non-random effect- such as your own opinion ?

You guys make me laugh. If you and I were criminologists investigating a death the first question we would ask is was this death natural causes (an accident or a heart attack or some other unintended cause) or was it a matter of foul play? Evidence it was natural causes would weigh against it being foul play, evidence it was foul play would weigh against it being natural causes. If we go out in the woods and see some kind of structure made of logs we would attempt to evaluate whether the wood was placed intentionally to make a shelter or was it caused by a storm that blew the wood against a rock that made it look like it was intentionally placed. We wouldn't go into some kind of bullshit discussion about whether 'random variables are capable of producing a non-random effect'. That appeal to smoke and mirrors would only come up in this discussion.

Atheism is merely a response to the irrational, unprovable and often downright idiotic claims about imaginary men who live in the sky and care deeply about each and every one of us but will send us to a place of infinite torment for finite transgressions some of which are neither immoral nor unethical.

Your response is to various religious beliefs. Theism is philosophy about our existence if your angry about religion, take it up with theologians.

Yes all that is great. But does the topic of god existing even deserve conversation? When something is so obviously a fairy tale why do we even need to debate it? I am questioning why I even joined this forum.

Its hard to imagine how the existence of God can be such an obvious fairy tale and yet you can't convince those who call themselves 'weak atheists' that the fairy tale doesn't exist...how is that?

Secondly what alternate non-fairy tale explanation do you offer in place of theism?

You have an interesting habit of leaving out the identity of the person whom you're quoting. I'm a strong atheist towards the literally interpreted version of the God of the Bible, it contradicts physical evidence. I'm a weak atheist towards less problematic versions of God. It's not that complex of a position. And if you think a theologian can't be an atheist, I'd say you don't understand many of the terms you are using. There are several prominent atheist theologians.

I try to get to as many responses as possible is why I don't say who I'm responding to...

No what I am saying is those who have beefs with particular alleged holy writs, interpretations of such writs or doctrines of churches and so forth need to take it up with theologians not me. There is no theology of theism, church of theism or holy writs attributed to theism. Its the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

Yes, we all know you think that, despite anything we might have to say to the contrary. The basis of your opinion seems to be that since it makes criticizing atheism more difficult for you, that must be the reason so many of us hold that inconvenient position. After all, if our position is that we are not convinced any gods exist and your position is that at least one does, the burden of proof is on you, and you know you can't meet that burden.

I have met the burden of making a case from evidence (facts) to justify my opinion we owe our existence to a Creator. The weak atheist position doesn't make a debate about the existence of God more difficult, it makes such a debate impossible. As a theist I don't deny the existence of God but either do weak atheists. What's there to debate?

You could simply take the position that you believe in your version of God regardless of whether you can support it empirically. It's a position you would be well-advised to take, if you think tactics are paramount. That puts us on equal footing, burden of proof-wise, if that's what's important to you.

Ideally this debate would occur the way any debate is normally conducted. Each side respects the others view but disagrees with them. Each side presents evidence they believe supports there view they make their case and let the undecided decide who prevailed.

Are we the same in that we don't believe God is real and you don't either?

Do things that aren't real possibly exist? Do you merely lack belief in the existence of Santa Claus or fairies but concede they might actually exist? What you're doing is confirming that folks who call themselves weak atheists are disingenuous in that they do have the opinion God doesn't exist they merely prefer to say they lack belief in the existence of God.

You can't possibly be claiming that you've found a shortage of people on this site willing to make a case for why they're skeptical of theism.

There are an abundance of those who are willing to share why there skeptical of theism. Mere skepticism and criticism of theism is never going to convince the teeming masses God doesn't exist because it leaves the existence of the universe and humans in limbo. What they would need to do to really persuade the teeming masses is provide some alternate non-god explanation that accounts for why we find ourselves in a universe that supports our existence.

[Ravenshire]

You guys make me laugh. If you and I were criminologists investigating a death the first question we would ask is was this death natural causes (an accident or a heart attack or some other unintended cause) or was it a matter of foul play? Evidence it was natural causes would weigh against it being foul play, evidence it was foul play would weigh against it being natural causes. If we go out in the woods and see some kind of structure made of logs we would attempt to evaluate whether the wood was placed intentionally to make a shelter or was it caused by a storm that blew the wood against a rock that made it look like it was intentionally placed. We wouldn't go into some kind of bullshit discussion about whether 'random variables are capable of producing a non-random effect'. That appeal to smoke and mirrors would only come up in this discussion.

Well, it's obvious you understand what evidence, what it's good for and how it's used. Now, maybe you can present some to support your claim that gawd exists.

You do seem to fail to grasp the difference between not believing in something and believing it doesn't exist. It is a fine distinction, but most people can figure it out. I'll lay it out for you:
Believing something does not exist is a type of positive claim, even though you're claiming to believe a negative. Not believing in something is simply the refusal to accept a claim at face value.

If you say "God exists." and I counter with "Nuh-uh." that is an example of the first.
If you say "God exists." and I counter with "I don't believe that." that is an example of the second.

Inherent is the fist is the necessity to prove my claim if confronted on it. Inherent in the second is a willingness to view evidence and change my stance if the evidence actually supports the claim.

See the difference now?!?

All that being said, while I maintain that I am an agnostic atheist, i do tend to become more gnostic as the gawd claims get better defined.

[Angrboda]

No what I am saying is those who have beefs with particular alleged holy writs, interpretations of such writs or doctrines of churches and so forth need to take it up with theologians not me. There is no theology of theism, church of theism or holy writs attributed to theism. Its the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

No, theism is simply the belief that one or more gods exist. This 'creator' business is a part of your specific theology. And I rather suspect that your beliefs are a whole lot more specific than that.

[downbeatplumb]

Not believing in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

Lets see how that works. I don't believe in Santa Claus but I don't believe Santa doesn't exist. I don't believe in fairies but I don't believe fairies don't exist because that's different. This is classic atheist logic.

I don't believe in extra terrestrial intelligence but I don't believe extra terrestrial intelligence does not exist.

There is simply not enough evidence to support the positive claim but it is definitely possible.

See how that works.

[Ravenshire]

Mere skepticism and criticism of theism is never going to convince the teeming masses God doesn't exist because it leaves the existence of the universe and humans in limbo.

No it doesn't.

What they would need to do to really persuade the teeming masses is provide some alternate non-god explanation that accounts for why we find ourselves in a universe that supports our existence.

Ever read a science book of any kind?!?

[Cato]

Not believing in something is not the same as believing something doesn't exist.

Lets see how that works. I don't believe in Santa Claus but I don't believe Santa doesn't exist. I don't believe in fairies but I don't believe fairies don't exist because that's different. This is classic atheist logic.

You seem to be deluded about what an atheist is. Your fucking god doesn't exist; never has, never will. Get it? No fucking god = atheist. There's not even the slightest possibility that the character described by the Bible or the Quran is real. No chance. None. Zilch. Nil. No fucking god. Simple enough for you?

[JesusHChrist]

No fucking god. Simple enough for you?

Works for me.

[Drew_2013]

Snakeoil

You do seem to fail to grasp the difference between not believing in something and believing it doesn't exist. It is a fine distinction, but most people can figure it out. I'll lay it out for you:
Believing something does not exist is a type of positive claim, even though you're claiming to believe a negative. Not believing in something is simply the refusal to accept a claim at face value.

I'm very familiar with the distinction. What I'm arguing in this thread is the distinction does more harm than good.

First it redefines atheism in such a way you might as well drop the A. Theism means God the A in atheism mean not or without God. Weak atheists share more in common with a theist than an atheist who actually claims not or without God. A theist doesn't deny God exists either does the weak atheist! There is no point in debating the existence of God between a weak atheist and a theist since the weak atheist doesn't deny (even as a mere opinion) that God exists. Whats to argue? Lastly if the atheists who subscribe to the A in atheist can't convince weak atheists God doesn't exist then there case must be pathetic.

rasetsu

No what I am saying is those who have beefs with particular alleged holy writs, interpretations of such writs or doctrines of churches and so forth need to take it up with theologians not me. There is no theology of theism, church of theism or holy writs attributed to theism. Its the belief we owe our existence to a Creator.

No, theism is simply the belief that one or more gods exist. This 'creator' business is a part of your specific theology. And I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that your beliefs are a whole lot more specific than that.

If I bother to show two or more sources that use the word creator to define theism are you going to say okay I stand corrected or are you going to insist you're correct as you customarily do?

Yes it does mean a lot more to me. It means that humans are special and provides a philosophical basis for thinking so. It provides a basis of equality among people and a reason to provide sanctions against those who would enslave or abuse people. It is also the basis in the USA for the belief human beings are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights among these is the belief that all humans are created equal and a litany of other rights that are granted not by the government but by a Creator. That the government is in power to protect those rights.

Downbeat

I don't believe in extra terrestrial intelligence but I don't believe extra terrestrial intelligence does not exist.

There is simply not enough evidence to support the positive claim but it is definitely possible.

See how that works.

By the same token, if it is definitely possible that God exists what beef can you have with theists who simply do believe what you say is a definite possibility?

---

Lets see how that works. I don't believe in Santa Claus but I don't believe Santa doesn't exist. I don't believe in fairies but I don't believe fairies don't exist because that's different. This is classic atheist logic.

You seem to be deluded about what an atheist is. Your fucking god doesn't exist; never has, never will. Get it? No fucking god = atheist. There's not even the slightest possibility that the character described by the Bible or the Quran is real. No chance. None. Zilch. Nil. No fucking god. Simple enough for you?

Its your fellow atheists who are in a fog...take it up with them.

[Ravenshire]

I'm very familiar with the distinction. What I'm arguing in this thread is the distinction does more harm than good.

First it redefines atheism in such a way you might as well drop the A. Theism means God the A in atheism mean not or without God. Weak atheists share more in common with a theist than an atheist who actually claims not or without God. A theist doesn't deny God exists either does the weak atheist! There is no point in debating the existence of God between a weak atheist and a theist since the weak atheist doesn't deny (even as a mere opinion) that God exists. Whats to argue? Lastly if the atheists who subscribe to the A in atheist can't convince weak atheists God doesn't exist then there case must be pathetic.

Ok, I see the problem now. You're confused about the meaning of the word.

This should clear that up:
theism
[thee-iz-uh m]

noun
1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

You could also add:
3. the belief in any god(s)

Theism does not mean gawd, but the belief in one (or more). If you want to continue making up your own definitions for words, there's absolutely no sense in conversing with you since we won't be using the same language.

[Cato]

Its your fellow atheists who are in a fog...take it up with them.

In a fog I can detect the presence of my fellow atheists with my other four senses; your god still remain elusive.