About atheism

[robvalue]

Oh, this is a debate is it?

Well, are you going to learn what those words mean that you keep using? Because your use is not the same as ours.

[LastPoet]

A lot of atheists are sceptics, but certainly not all. So if you have a problem with scepticism, it's best to address that directly.

A sceptic generally doesn't believe in Gods, souls, afterlives, ghosts and magic, because they are ill-defined and have no evidence besides anecdotes.

I agree that accepting reality on reality's terms can be daunting and so many people prefer the comfort of fantasy.

Something to point out. Being an atheist is just a subset of my skepticism rob. An atheist can believe in spirits for that matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes. For example agnostic position is a default. You add religious fate and a person is sure like its a fact that God exists. You add "Atheistic" fate and person says "I decided that God doesn't exist".

Firstly, I'm not sure you're actually responding to anything in my post.  I asked you if belief worked that way for you, the way you claim that it does.  Do you believe or not believe in something based upon whether you like or dislike it?  Is your answer of yes in reference to that question or have we simply decided to talk about something else?

So agnosticism is a default, fine, I've no reason to argue.  What is religious fate, and how does it's addition make a person sure...and what does that have to do with whether or not they like or dislike whatever proposition is to be believed?  What is atheistic fate....and how is whatever that is relevant to a persons likes or dislikes....and the manner in which you've proposed people (particularly atheists) come to whatever it is they do or don't believe?

Here, let me give you two more examples. I really like Thor, I don't believe that Thor exists. I really dislike syphillis...and yet I'm certain that it exists. I'm an atheist, and my belief status about gods -and- more mundane things doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you claimed it did.

We see that claim all the time, though, despite it's plain and obvious inanity. It's a favorite thing for dipshits to fob off on gullible people. Who told you that's how belief works? Could you not work out for yourself....based upon nothing other than your own belief sets...that whomever told you that had bullshitted you?

[LastPoet]

Atheism is the rejection of god claims. They need to show why they believe. I am also a asupernaturalist, but i do am a naturalist.

[robvalue]

A lot of atheists are sceptics, but certainly not all. So if you have a problem with scepticism, it's best to address that directly.

A sceptic generally doesn't believe in Gods, souls, afterlives, ghosts and magic, because they are ill-defined and have no evidence besides anecdotes.

I agree that accepting reality on reality's terms can be daunting and so many people prefer the comfort of fantasy.

Something to point out. Being an atheist is just a subset of my skepticism rob. An atheist can believe in spirits for that matter.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said Not all atheists are sceptics. He is trying to address scepticism but calling it atheism, because he refuses to learn anything. Clearly he didn't watch any of my videos, and he's not listening to anyone. He's just here to make himself feel good by lording over us with his mistaken definitions. Not that he's made a valid objection to scepticism anyhow, except it interferes with his fairy tales.

[Cato]

Purple,

Much of your argument hinges on the existence of an afterlife. Until you can present evidence in support of an afterlife all subsequent arguments can simply be dismissed as unsound.

Your assertion that anything is possible in our expansive universe also has a couple fatal flaws:

1. Not everything is possible in the universe based on known physical laws. If your following rationalization is that there are places in the universe where its laws are suspended then we are then simply talking miracles which can be dismissed pending demonstration.

2. For entities whose existence may not violate physical laws (unicorns, dragons, et. al.) you conveniently forget that the claims of these magical beings are said to exist or have existed here. Claiming that they may exist 'somewhere' doesn't save your position.

Your assertions are simply untenable.

[robvalue]

I get a bit sick of people complaining "atheists should be agnostics" when most atheist are agnostics, it's just misuse of the terminology.

"Just agnostic" <=> "Weak (agnostic) atheist"

The agnostic part is actually redundant in this case, as I explained in my video. If you have no belief either way, knowledge doesn't even enter into it.

You don't make a valid point by just using different definitions for words and ignoring the difference.

[purplepurpose]

I think its all about the profit. For happy people its pointless to move towards God as there is nothing to gain from him. For sad people its a way to ease the pain, which is some kind of profit.

[robvalue]

You can't even tell me what a god is, just like every other theist. You don't know what it is.

You've been sold on a fairy tale.

[robvalue]

Again, this is why I'm ignostic. I don't know what the fuck a god is, and no theist can tell me. No point in sugar coating it.

They can't convince me that even they know what it is.