Why atheism is a belief.

[Napoléon]

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.

Imagination doesn't have any bearing on evidence. There is no evidence for god. Ergo, I do not believe in god. I do not rule out the 'possibility' of SOME FORM of god, but seen as there is no evidence, I see no point in wasting my time mindlessly hoping and believing there is one.

Here's a cause of existence for you. An eternal giant tortoise who knows all, sees all and IS all, shits us out of it's arse. Thus the universe was born. Tell me, would you take my theory seriously? If so why not?

I make a bet that the reasons you come up with are the same as why I don't take religion or god seriously.

Oh, and do feel free enlightened one, to tell us all of your secrets, because I am yet to hear your reasoning as to why you think there should be a god? Other than ofcourse the constant repetition of "you guyz are stupidz cuz you don't have any better ideaz".

NEWSFLASH: We don't need any.

[JoopWoop]

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.

Try not to be so dramatic, I’m fully aware that twats like you exist and will always do so. Keep holding a vigil for that sweeter life though.

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.

Once again, what evidence are you looking for? A signed affidavit by Jesus, a quick visit by Allah or Yahweh?
Given the variation of belief amongst each and within each religion, what theists claims are you dismissing? All of them? How do you reconcile those who do not believe in a literal translation of the bible and that their theism is based on one of the following (theological, ethical, spiritual, liturgical, or other theme).

Your perceptive is limited to denying those who are literalists and fundamentalists.

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.

Repetition does not make it correct, unless you’re using your atheism as an affirmation? Most of your statements consist of saying “I’m right as I’ve repeated it numerous times”. Also I’m telling you that you believe, not what you believe. Or is this a veiled acceptance on your part?

---

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

There's a requirement for an cause and god is a possibility.

---

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.

Imagination doesn't have any bearing on evidence. There is no evidence for god. Ergo, I do not believe in god. I do not rule out the 'possibility' of SOME FORM of god, but seen as there is no evidence, I see no point in wasting my time mindlessly hoping and believing there is one.

Here's a cause of existence for you. An eternal giant tortoise who knows all, sees all and IS all, shits us out of it's arse. Thus the universe was born. Tell me, would you take my theory seriously? If so why not?

I make a bet that the reasons you come up with are the same as why I don't take religion or god seriously.

Oh, and do feel free enlightened one, to tell us all of your secrets, because I am yet to hear your reasoning as to why you think there should be a god? Other than ofcourse the constant repetition of "you guyz are stupidz cuz you don't have any better ideaz".

NEWSFLASH: We don't need any.

I know you don't need any, that's irrelevant what you think you need.

You define something ridiculous and then discount it, this seems to be the bastion for all atheists.

It seems atheists lack the ability to think beyond what they deem to be evidence and can only offer FSM as a nail in the coffin of a god. It must be horrible to be that limited.

[Epimethean]

Joop, your own stance on the fallibility of the senses negates your contentions "such that god" pretty neatly inasmuch as it renders everything you say, pro deo or contra versos moot. In effect, your argument undermines itself. Evidence is necessary. If none exists, your merry-go-round may keep the saliva flying away from your face, but your audience is already bored.

[JoopWoop]

I'm not here to entertain you, I'm here to educate you on your arrogance.

What evidence do you require and what is evidence? I must admit it amuses me that you have assigned yourself the ability to adjudicate in this matter.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Try not to be so dramatic, I’m fully aware that twats like you exist and will always do so. Keep holding a vigil for that sweeter life though.

I'd like to think I was optimistic. Then again, instead of doing something useful with my time, I'm lowering myself to educate someone who can only speak in insults. Of course, that is a result of my own masochism to subject myself to this special education course in the basics of the basic definition of atheism.

Once again, what evidence are you looking for? A signed affidavit by Jesus, a quick visit by Allah or Yahweh?

Any of those would indeed be accepable, assuming there was some way to determine if said affidavit isn't a forgery.
As such, it would likely require more evidence.

Given the variation of belief amongst each and within each religion, what theists claims are you dismissing? All of them? How do you reconcile those who do not believe in a literal translation of the bible and that their theism is based on one of the following (theological, ethical, spiritual, liturgical, or other theme).

Given that I am not aware of the beliefs of every religion, I can't say that I reject 100% of the claims of every religion on the planet given that some of the beliefs might be grounded on a facutal basis and that I'm unaware of it. This includes individual variations of someone's faith.

Of the major religions to which I am aware of and given my basic understanding of those, yes, I soundly reject them based upon their principle founding documents and the claims made made by their leaders.

For example, I reject christianity and islam based upon their holy texts, the supposed 'power' of faith healers, and the existence of souls.

I accept the fact that I can be proven wrong on anything at any time but I also accept the fact that virtually every religious claim is without merit or evidence and as such, I have no reason to believe any of it.

Your perceptive is limited to denying those who are literalists and fundamentalists.

Just because someone accepts some things in the bible and not others doesn't make their beliefs better founded in reality. Literalists and fundementalists just make the easiest targets. The remainder simply chose to fill in the current crop of the "unknowns" of the universe with whatever they feel apprpriate.
For the non-literalist bible believing christian who chooses to believe that god created the universe but everything else is true (and thus rejects biblical creationism) is still essentially deluding himself.
We don't know what happened before a certain point in the big bang theory and numerous other scientific principles, but there's still no evidence of god, therefore, the 'god hypothosis' is without reason or merit and thus THAT answer is as good as any other - including both the ridiculous and insane.

Repetition does not make it correct, unless you’re using your atheism as an affirmation? Most of your statements consist of saying “I’m right as I’ve repeated it numerous times”. Also I’m telling you that you believe, not what you believe. Or is this a veiled acceptance on your part?

No, repeating myself doesn't make me correct. I'm certainly glad you've pointed out an arguement I've never made but I'm not thrilled about being told that I believe in unsubstantiated claims given the fact that, as an atheist, I reject delusions and I don't accept them.
The idea of god is an unsubstantiated claim that has no support and thus far hasnt' provided falsifiable evidence. It isn't a belief to reject the idea of god because there is no cause to believe that such a being exists.

The reason I bring up 'repeating myself' (I actually stated that certain arguemetns have been repeated ad nausium - not even that i had been making the arguements, but what's intellectual honesty's worth when you can just make shit up, right?) is because all of these points were brought up in the first few pages of the thread and you both ignored them and failed to make any counterclaims while hurling insults along the way.
That is to say that it proves essentially that you don't care about finding out why atheism isn't a belief as you claim, but rather you seem to prefer to preach to us what you think we believe.

Just for the record, that conclusion isnt' me putting words in your mouth, considering that this entire thread is evidence of my above statements.

There's a requirement for an cause and god is a possibility.

Really? The first cause arguement? For someone who doesn't have religious beliefs, you certainly have taken to their ridiculous nonsense.

The short answer is no, there is no reason to need to bias ourselves toward an answer that has no merit or evidence outside of trying to fit reality into a delusional bex because it fits a certain propoganda.

[Cinjin]

First things first ................... HA HA HA HA!!! HA HA HA HA!!! OHHHH .... thats funny ....... seriously .... do you people meet somewhere on the web and chat about showing up here, lying about who you are and then hitting us with the EXACT SAME SHIT we see every other day.

But now moving on ...

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

I've never heard an atheist state that before. One, it's a double negative and two, every atheist I've ever met simply says, I don't believe in any gods. That's it... no more.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Completely superfluous statement.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

Well, since YOU say so, and YOU'RE an authority on everything existential, let us all praise YOU now for your glorious insight that still not surprisingly changes absolutely nothing.

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

LOL .. "sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence" REALLY? Pay attention now ... there is no evidence ... therefore that gives atheists sufficient cause for citing lack of evidence.
Seriously? Is this goombah for real?

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

Worst Analogy Ever Award. Yeah man, it's REALLY hard to get evidence of where a coin on the street came from. christ ... this dude's an idiot.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

You're the only one arguing that point. The rest of us already know it's not a belief and never bring it up. Hell, even most of the christians concede that. For that matter, what do YOU care if they call it a belief or not?

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

So what are you? An atheist prophet here to set us all straight???
An agnostic? A Buddhist? A Liar?



...anyway, you don't have to answer man .... honestly, no one here gives a shit what you have to say or what tired "new" theory you think you're bringing to the table.

[Epimethean]

I'm not here to entertain you, I'm here to educate you on your arrogance.

What evidence do you require and what is evidence? I must admit it amuses me that you have assigned yourself the ability to adjudicate in this matter.

How about something other than your verbal flatulence? You don't know what evidence is? OK, we can understand that. Fundamentalism will do that to you. Take your time, read some books. Start with Locke and Hobbes, maybe spend a little time with Darwin and Russell before moving to Dawkins and Dennett. Then come back. By then, you might not be wasting our time.

[JoopWoop]

Move on to Dawkins!!

That's funny as hell. Even many atheists condemn his brand of neo-atheism.

But at least I know what I'm dealing with here.

---

First things first ................... HA HA HA HA!!! HA HA HA HA!!! OHHHH .... thats funny ....... seriously .... do you people meet somewhere on the web and chat about showing up here, lying about who you are and then hitting us with the EXACT SAME SHIT we see every other day.

But now moving on ...

Atheists state they do not know there is no god.

I've never heard an atheist state that before. One, it's a double negative and two, every atheist I've ever met simply says, I don't believe in any gods. That's it... no more.

Atheists state there is a lack of evidence for a god, therefore there is no belief required.

Completely superfluous statement.

The flaw in this position is what you have assumed about evidence. You have assumed that evidence is available and observable; as if it is neither available nor observable you have assumed your conclusion by asking for evidence of something unobtainable.

To state Atheism is not a belief is nonsense as you have made assumptions to reach your apparent state of disbelief. That you disbelieve in a god is equivalent to a theist who believes, as neither of you have a valid reason for believing/disbelieving.

Well, since YOU say so, and YOU'RE an authority on everything existential, let us all praise YOU now for your glorious insight that still not surprisingly changes absolutely nothing.

If you claim to have sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence, what evidence do you have to disregard a god? And if you claim the burden of proof is elsewhere, what form evidence do you require?

LOL .. "sufficient cause for citing a lack of evidence" REALLY? Pay attention now ... there is no evidence ... therefore that gives atheists sufficient cause for citing lack of evidence.
Seriously? Is this goombah for real?

If you state you cannot account for existence, but disbelieve in the interim this makes no sense. If you find a coin on the street do you assume that it simply is without cause until you have proof of otherwise? I’m not using Paley’s argument to prove a god exists - assuming that nothing caused existence without the evidence of this apparent ‘nothing’ as a possible explanation is just illogical.

Worst Analogy Ever Award. Yeah man, it's REALLY hard to get evidence of where a coin on the street came from. christ ... this dude's an idiot.

If you have a personal preference for no god, fine, just don’t try and argue that atheism is not a belief.

You're the only one arguing that point. The rest of us already know it's not a belief and never bring it up. Hell, even most of the christians concede that. For that matter, what do YOU care if they call it a belief or not?

Once again, I’m not a theist. Never have been. You may think this accusation gives your position some credence, but it just highlights the weakness of your perspective if this is all you have as a response.

So what are you? An atheist prophet here to set us all straight???
An agnostic? A Buddhist? A Liar?



...anyway, you don't have to answer man .... honestly, no one here gives a shit what you have to say or what tired "new" theory you think you're bringing to the table.

Geez well done you missed every point. I don't think I'll waste my time telling you why.

---

You seem to think I'm insulting you guys as a retort, I'm telling you that you're stupid based on what you've written.

That you don't agree with me, I can accept it's how you justify or rationalise your own perspective which shows your sluggish thought process.

[Epimethean]

You are entertaining, if nothing else. Right: You are entertaining.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

You seem to think I'm insulting you guys as a retort, I'm telling you that you're stupid based on what you've written.

It not only contributes nothing to the discussion but also does nothing to defend your points. All it does is make iyou look foolish.

That you don't agree with me, I can accept it's how you justify or rationalise your own perspective which shows your sluggish thought process.

It's not even that we don't agree with you, it's that we've proven you wrong and pointed out that your entire premise (atheism being a belief) is wrong and we've pointed out why this is. You might accept that we don't agree with you, but it's quite apparent that you're either unwilling or unable to defend any legitimate points you may have made in this discussion and made yourself out to be some sort of moron in the process since apparently the best way you can make us look foolish is by hurling pointless and gratuitous insults at us.

I hope you realise by now that any actual discussion has died out when you refused to answer any criticisms and rebuttals of your points with anything but further insults considering that, as Epimethean pointed out, most of us are simply here at this point for the entertainment value you provide us since this pathetic showing is apparently the best you can do.