No reason justifies disbelief.

[The Valkyrie]

I have a favorite example.  Every morning I walk into the bathroom and take a shit.  Then, the sun rises.  No need to thank me, yet another service I provide.

Does anyone believe that my morning shit causes the sun to rise?  No.  Is their positive disbelief in that claim reasoned?  Hard yes.

For a direct analog. Does anyone believe that a god played around in the mud and that's how people were made? Hilariously, yes. Is positive disbelief in that claim reasoned? Hard yes. Even if there were gods, it didn't happen like that..in the same way that my taking a shit every morning being a factual claim doesn't alter the truth status of the claim tat said shit causes the sun to rise. In a similar vein, even if there were some reason or cause to all things in existence, it won't alter the truth status of the second half of every creator™ claim - that said reason or cause was an anthropomorphic misunderstanding of the universe and events as a whole.

I suspect that, instinctively, even the most devout fairy believer knows this. They don't want to bicker about fairies, after all. They prefer to argue for "causes". Caused shit has causes, the suns rising in the morning has a cause too..just not my morning shit. If the universe has a cause...then it has a cause, but that doesn't change the fact that this cause isn't the mental turd some lovingly call a creator™

But I like the dark.

Bastard!!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

So because we fail to believe your bullshit, we're unreasoning.

---

that's a new one. Please define reasoned disbelief @BrianSoddingBoru4

Disbelief where the known facts are consistent with with disbelief.  For example, what we know about the universe is very strongly suggestive that the existence of a deity type being is both unnecessary and not factually correct.  Therefore disbelief in that deity is reasoned.

And not one thing I said above is inconsistent with the known facts.

---

Yes that helps. I always saw it as belief is a threshold thing. You either had justification or it didn't meet a level of criteria. If it surpassed your threshold you believed, if you didn't your disbelieved. You make it sound here as if you're positively positing arguments against nothing.

You've it the wrong way round.  You believe when you want proposition X to be true, but you have insufficient evidence to back it up, or evidence shows that it is false.  When you have sufficient evidence you don't believe, you accept.

---

Should be a hanging offence.

Http gifs don't work with https

It's the thought that counts.

[EgoDeath]

What I'd like to see when someone makes blanket statements like "No reason justifies disbelief" is to actually see that person demonstrate WHY it is so. You can shout "god is real" from the rooftops all the live long day; it doesn't make it so. Until you've demonstrated why you think there's no reason to disbelieve in god, I don't think you deserve any sort of serious response from anyone.

[brewer]

I have a favorite example.  Every morning I walk into the bathroom and take a shit.  Then, the sun rises.  No need to thank me, yet another service I provide.

So that's what the predawn smell is. Exhaust fan please.

[Belacqua]

Any reason which causes disbelief would be intellectual dishonesty.

Reason does not cause disbelief. Such claims are ridiculous.

And you don't justify your disbelief, rudeness and hate with claims of being reasonable.

To be fair, there are some people here who claim their lack of belief is not a reasoned result at all. It results from no reasons and is based on no knowledge or claims.

[fredd bear]

that's a new one. Please define reasoned disbelief @BrianSoddingBoru4

New?  Hardly. Reasoned argument on the existence of God(s)  has been going on for over 2000 years, long before Christianity was invented. Every argument for the existence of god(s) has been demolished ,using---reason.

Of course, unless he makes a claim ,the atheist need not provide  reasons for his disbelief. That is a common ploy of believers, in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.  It is the responsibility of the believer to prove his claims, not  that of the disbeliever to disprove them..

  For one of the more readable and beautifully  lucid thinkers, I refer you to the writings of Bertrand Russell., especially to his printed essay " Why I am not a Christian".  I also refer to his  famous 1948 radio debate with Frederick Copleton., a Jesuit priest and  leading philosopher.

The topic of the debate is "The existence of God". The specific reasoned argument is that of contingency.

This atheist dis-believes. I do not un-believe. I dis-believe because of the total absence of proof for the existence of; Gods, the soul, after life, Angels, demons, the supernatural, the para normal, fortune telling, dragons, trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden. BUT I don't know any of that for fact. Such claims are essentially unfalsifiable. Hence, I call myself an 'agnostic" or 'soft  'atheist.

A simple example is "Russell's Teapot"

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.
Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPdpEJk78E


Copleston–Russell debate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Copleston–Russell debate is a dispute concerning the existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell in a 1948 BBC broadcast. The debate between Copleston and Russel would typify the arguments presented between theists and atheists in the later half of the 20th century, with Russell's approach often used by atheists in the late 20th century.[1] The debate centers on two points: the metaphysical and moral arguments on the existence of God.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copleston%...ell_debate



PS: IF you are seriously interested in learning the basics of reasoned discussion, there is no better place to start than Plato. Two thin volumes ;  "Crito" and "The Republic" (Plato  was not an admirer of democracy,)  These two books are  commonly found in first year studies of philosophy at Universities.

[Belacqua]

Every argument for the existence of god(s) has been demolished ,using---reason.

I know you won't support your assertions, because it's not "fun," but this sentence isn't true.

PS: IF you are seriously interested in learning the basics of reasoned discussion, there is no better place to start than Plato. Two thin volumes ;  "Crito" and "The Republic" (Plato  was not an admirer of democracy,)  These two books are  commonly found in first year studies of philosophy at Universities.

Plato's Form of the Good is nearly identical to the Christian God described by many theologians. To recommend Plato here is to contradict yourself.

Jowett's translation of the Republic is 216 pages. That's "thin" compared to Proust, I guess. I suspect you haven't read it.

---

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... given the dates... isn't it that the Christian's took inspiration from the classical Greek philosophers?

[The Valkyrie]

Playing with the thread title, Reason DOES justify non belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

Every argument for the existence of god(s) has been demolished ,using---reason.

I know you won't support your assertions, because it's not "fun," but this sentence isn't true.

PS: IF you are seriously interested in learning the basics of reasoned discussion, there is no better place to start than Plato. Two thin volumes ;  "Crito" and "The Republic" (Plato  was not an admirer of democracy,)  These two books are  commonly found in first year studies of philosophy at Universities.

Plato's Form of the Good is nearly identical to the Christian God described by many theologians. To recommend Plato here is to contradict yourself.

Jowett's translation of the Republic is 216 pages. That's "thin" compared to Proust, I guess. I suspect you haven't read it.

---

If platos form of the good exists, then platos form of the good exists.  Doesn't have a thing to do with gods, let alone the bloodgod christers worship.