Why atheism is a belief.

[AthiestAtheist]

This one-sided perspective seems to correlate to the same rationale applied to your atheism.

Oh the hypocrisy...

Seriously, that's your strategy? To defend yourself against accusations of insulting people by insulting people?

[JoopWoop]

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination.

Perfect description of the god concept. Ridiculous and can't account for any unexplained occurrences and are products of imagination.

This is the perfect description from your biased perspective. As you cannot provide any valid alterative to account for existence the god concept is still on the table. You’ve gone one step too far with Ockham’s razor and eliminate causality due to what you believe. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss cause and effect but you’ve done so.

Now seeing as the FSM, the celestial teapot and pixies are so ridiculous, you should have no problems disproving them.

Tell me what they explain or why there is a requirement for them? The only similarity is you cannot provide an alternative for a god or a teapot, what this proves will remain a mystery in your own mind.

[5thHorseman]

where is the requirement for god, or are you just arguing from ignorance that 'god' is needed?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

This is the perfect description from your biased perspective. As you cannot provide any valid alterative to account for existence the god concept is still on the table. You’ve gone one step too far with Ockham’s razor and eliminate causality due to what you believe. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss cause and effect but you’ve done so.

Atheists don't need an alternative.
God's existence was never necessary to begin with.
There's your occam's razor.

[Ace Otana]

This is the perfect description from your biased perspective. As you cannot provide any valid alterative to account for existence the god concept is still on the table. You’ve gone one step too far with Ockham’s razor and eliminate causality due to what you believe. It doesn’t make sense to dismiss cause and effect but you’ve done so.

No. I've rejected an unsupported claim. A claim made by theists. You cannot assert that god created anything if you have not yet demonstrated that a god exists. A does not prove B without first proving A.
God does not answer where it all came from, because his very existence has not yet been demonstrated. Also just because we don't know what caused X, doesn't make Y the default answer.
Also, you don't need an alternative to reject a baseless claim.

Tell me what they explain or why there is a requirement for them? The only similarity is you cannot provide an alternative for a god or a teapot, what this proves will remain a mystery in your own mind.

So you can't disprove them then? Looks like I've successfully demonstrated the similarity between pixies and god. They are both concepts, they both cannot explain anything. They both lack evidence. God is a concept like any made up character. You can't prove or disprove either of them.

[JoopWoop]

So if someone chucks a insult at me and I retort, you seem to think this shows that all I have is to resort to insulting your intelligence?

So far, given what I've been reading, this appears to be the case.
You've participated in no discussion and have thus far not bothered to actually defend your riduiculous beliefs.

If you cannot read or comprehend that’s not my problem. Once again you just chuck around pointless statements or are you punching your keyboard randomly?

Santa, Spagetti monster, and such don't prove anything other than that there is as much evidence and reason to believe that they exist as does for your religion. That is to say, it doesn't prove anything and the fact that your religion is established doesn't make it any less ridiculous than those examples.

I have no religion. Try thinking again.

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit. Is that all you have a teapot and fat guy in a red suit to 'discount' something what you have no idea of? When you realise you have no idea then you see why your perspective only serves to suit your assumptions.

Your religion accounts for those 'unexplained occurrence' just as well as any other made up explaination.

I have no religion and have outlined no accounts, all wishful thinking on your part.

What seporates atheists and other rational skeptics from theists is that we understand that and theists do not. They accept made up answers in lieu of no answer.

Great, I don’t care what theists do. I accept the possibility in absence of any evidence for or against a god. You dismiss without having any idea of what a valid alternative could be. Therefore you dismiss something with no idea of what you’re dismissing or what you’re even looking for.

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

Atheism isn't an alternative. It's a non-acceptance of theism.

So you have no objections against the concept of god? Or is theism interchangeable with god?

---

Ok, let's give in for a second. (edited to be nice)

Let's call atheism a belief. Ok, YOU WIN with your awesome arguments and have changed my mind.

Now what??? Why does it matter if it's a belief or not? What is your point?

My point is you have much right to claim your view is correct as a theist. The similarities are you both espouse your views with the rigour of a fundamentalist, all it does is divide, it provides no benefit to anyone. Apart from Dawkin’s pocket and perhaps provide some emotional outlet for you.

---

So if someone chucks a insult at me and I retort, you seem to think this shows that all I have is to resort to insulting your intelligence? This one-sided perspective seems to correlate to the same rationale applied to your atheism.

I find it amusing that the unicorn, santa and fsm are all so commonly used as an example to negate a god.

None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit. Is that all you have a teapot and fat guy in a red suit to 'discount' something what you have no idea of? When you realise you have no idea then you see why your perspective only serves to suit your assumptions.

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

Nothing accounts for unexplained occurrences, else they'd be explained occurrences.

Is that really your response? Do you like chocolates?

---

'None of these ridiculous examples account for any unexplained occurrences and all are known to be products of the imagination. That they form the basis of an atheists belief set only outlines why it has a foundation in bullshit.'

No proof of god, Noah's Ark, immaculate conceptioin, water into wine, healing lepers, resurrection.

So your atheism is solely against a Christian God?

That's a real foundation of bullshit and i've only touched the sides.

We deal with facts and scientific theory, you delve into bronze age mythology thought up by mostly illiterate goat herders and a poorly written book that's translated.

I’ve never read or believe the bible, so you missed the boat there sunshine

---

If you're going to negate provide some alternatives, otherwise you look like a petulant child yelling no. Much like this child you seem to think you have a valid perspective.

The only petulant child here is you. YOU come here, telling us what WE are supposed to believe, and act like you're the font of all fucking knowledge? Well guess what jackass, you have no clue what you're talking about, people have already told you why you are incorrect in asserting that atheists 'believe' yet you carry on.

That an atheist denies that they believe does not lead to me being incorrect, it’s merely you saying “I don’t believe”. Big deal, based on the manner in which you attempt to outline why you don’t believe I’m far less inclined to give many things you say any credibility whatsoever.

Your response is essentially “no you are”.

There is absolutely no need to provide alternatives for god. Why don't you explain why there should be such a need instead of branding us all something which you have no basis for other than 'you say so'. You sir are talking out of your rectum.

So you have no idea of any possible causes for existence, but for some reason, you’re perfectly justified in dismissing the possibility of a god. Tell me there’s more to your position that this?

The more I look into it, the more retarded and fundamental the atheist position is. When you grow or wise up, you may see why.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

If you cannot read or comprehend that’s not my problem. Once again you just chuck around pointless statements or are you punching your keyboard randomly?

Given comments like this, I have good reason to believe that "punching my keyboard randomly" would at least give you an intellectual equal in this waste of time. As it stands, your inability to actually defend your own points seems to have a notable taste of intellectual inequality between you and the rest of us. Either you are able to actually come here and make discuss a point or you are not.

What you have done is insult all us in lieu of discussion. I've seen this in debates before - it usually comes from indefensible points with a deluded mind lashing out due to its inability to understand why the foundation of his or her beliefs is crumbling. It's like watching a computer freeze up and the program its running get thrown into an eternal loop.

I have no religion and have outlined no accounts, all wishful thinking on your part.

So you're an non-theist attacking atheists on their basis of atheism because we have no religious alternative? You're certainly doing your best (however pathetic that is) in arguing like a religious asshole.

Great, I don’t care what theists do. I accept the possibility in absence of any evidence for or against a god. You dismiss without having any idea of what a valid alternative could be. Therefore you dismiss something with no idea of what you’re dismissing or what you’re even looking for.

That's a mighty big presumption.

So you have no objections against the concept of god? Or is theism interchangeable with god?

The god of the religions of this earth is not simply idiotic but also impossible. The atheists here and elsewhere tend to argue against the god of the bible or other Earthly religions. Most atheists, including myself, don't disbelieve in beings with the kind of powers that a god or gods could possess. One of Zeus' powers was his power over lightning and, more or less, humanity has already done that and more.

[JoopWoop]

Great, I don’t care what theists do. I accept the possibility in absence of any evidence for or against a god. You dismiss without having any idea of what a valid alternative could be. Therefore you dismiss something with no idea of what you’re dismissing or what you’re even looking for.

That's a mighty big presumption.

Prove me wrong sweetheart.

The rest of your post was babbling drivel so I just deleted it.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Prove me wrong sweetheart.

The rest of your post was babbling drivel so I just deleted it.

Ahh, if only someone could remove you from the planet, all of life would be the sweeter. It's okay, darling, you don't have to talk about the grown up things.

Your erroneous presumption is that we dismiss the possibilities of theism because, and I'll quote you for this,

Therefore you dismiss something with no idea of what you’re dismissing or what you’re even looking for.

Theistic claims are claims with no evidence. There is no evidence on Earth supporting the claims made by the major religions of christianity, islam, judaism, or most other religions. We dismiss those claims based on that reason, therefore, we have an idea of what we're dismissing.
Your claim that we don't know what we're looking for is simply wrong. We're looking for what most people look for: the truth - whatever that is.

We simply dismiss the stupid delusions that theists claim.

If I'm not mistaken, this has been repeated to you ad nausium but you continue to set up your pathetic strawman arguement against us and insult us for not falling for it. We dont' appreciate being told what we believe considering that your conlusion, hypothosis, and everything in between is flawed for this reason.
Therefore, that is a mighty big presumption, on your part.

[Epimethean]

Latest troll, full of stuffing, empty of stuff.