Why atheism is a belief.

[houseofcantor]

I'm 43 and completely in love with a girl that my common sense tells me to leave alone so I had to find some other way to fulfill the requirements of love - and oh yeah, it has requirements - so I made a theology around her and used it to falsify all theology.

Clever, huh? You don't want somebody else's god to do your thinking for you. If the Left-Hand path (like Set) ain't your cup of tea, being "open to the idea of god" is licence for their idea of god. Their idea of god sucks, dude.

But you want to worship some cunt who would just dump you for a younger man?

Theology is just bad stuff. Mine falsifies theirs, disproves itself, and disappears.

(I am stupid-in-love with that girl. She can dump me all day. )

[Shell B]

We get that you are in love with whatsherface. It's basically what your signature says. How long are we to be subjected to these professions of love?

[houseofcantor]

We get that you are in love with whatsherface. It's basically what your signature says. How long are we to be subjected to these professions of love?

I remember saying you were gonna hate me.

But if the siggy is a problem, I'll get rid of it. It's some carry-over from a happy thought at Thinking Atheist. Personally, some siggys annoy me; so it doesn't bother me in the least to remove mine if you find it annoying.

[houseofcantor]

We get that you are in love with whatsherface. It's basically what your signature says. How long are we to be subjected to these professions of love?

Siggy updated with some Temple of Set philosophy and link. Good call.

[Shell B]

I don't hate anyone. I'm naturally a blunt douchebag. It wasn't your sig, dear. That was enough was what I was saying. Every single one of your posts has been a protestation of love and while I think love is great, you're leaving a virtual paper trail a mile long. If that woman ever gets kidnapped, they are knocking on your door first.

[Mister Agenda]

I managed to hack into the system again...somehow. Anyway...

I'm sure we're all mystified at how you managed to pull it off.

It's interesting that the atheist argument often appeals to prove the negation of a god, by equating the existence of something which fulfils no function or purpose (such as fairies, santa Roger Rabbit, FSM) whatsoever, and this somehow equates to the equivalent of a negating a god, first cause, unmoved mover etc.

At the time that adults widely believed in fairies they served the purpose of explaining accidents, unexpected fortune, cows going dry, sick children, mental illness, ugly guys with hot wives, that sort of thing. They're a good example of a once-widespread belief that is now mostly abandoned because new widespread beliefs have replaced it. And the level of logic used to support their existence at the time involved evidence and logic equivalent to what is used to advance the God hypothesis today.

If you think that the inability to disprove a leprechaun effectively discounts the possibility of a god, then what do the existence of the fairies etc account for? And in the absence of evidence for possibilities for 'existence', what valid reason do you have to eqaute fairies with a god?

Faeries provide an explanation for things that are more reasonably accounted for with natural processes, and so does God. If you prefer, I can equate your God with another, roughly equivalent God. Which God do you believe in?

I remain open to the concept of a god. Many seem to be confused by defining something pointless/riduclous and then equating this to the concept of a god.

What's the definition of God to which you are open?

If you think a god is pointless/ridculous, outline your reasons for thinking so, and provide a validated alternative, otherwise you are unable to justify your position of negating a god by default.

When given a choice between a proposed entity and nothing, nothing (the null hypothesis) is to be preferred absent an evidence-based reason to believe the entity actually exists. That is because an infinite number of entities that can't be proven not to exist can be postulated which are also mutually exclusive, meaning that it is unreasonable to assign a significant probability to any one of them based solely on the testimony of people who aren't in a postiion to know more than anyone else on the matter.

It seems that being an atheist gives you some control and confidence in having a 'valid' position, yet you oddly lack the ability to validate your position.

All we have is a good idea of what a valid position is and choosing not to hold an invalid one. Rejecting an invalid position does not carry any requirement to replace it with something if a valid alternative is not available. We don't believe in Vishnu because there is no good reason to think Vishnu is real, we don't have to replace Vishnu with anything.

---

Ahh yes the rammstein kid. Unless you can incorporate insults into your argument, cunt, I believe they're not tolerated.

You're still not doing it right. Someone saying this is my argument, cunt, is still making a personal insult, which is against the rules. Adding a personal insult to an argument is cuntish argumentation.

---

Yes I know all atheists don't believe the same thing. It seems that this is the most important tenent of atheism. Not all of a type of any kind of person believes exactly the same, there tends to be major or minor variations. It seems a moot point, but one which must be constantly made.

Neither atheism nor theism have any tenets.

The difference is that we know that Santa does not buy presents, as all presents given to a child can be accounted for (i.e. who gave them which present). If there were presents which could not be accounted for this would provide the same level of the unknown as god presents us with. Otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges, unless you know that a god does not exist with the same level of certainty that santa does not exist. It's a bad anaology which makes no point and serves to reenforce a conclusion already made rather than actually convincing anyone.

Can you prove that no presents at all are left by Santa? Have you never heard of a Christmas miracle, like an unknown stranger bringing just what you need to make Christmas joyous? And what about the spirit of generosity that reaches unique levels at Christmas time, can you conclusively say Santa Claus is not responsible for this?

I understand that. But this only highlights your conclusion. Tell me why you don't believe in a god, what evidence is present to discount it? Do you have a validated alternative which can remove the requirement for a creator? It's very simple to negate a santa or tooth fairy through cause and effect. If you're going to say "there really isn't any difference" you should be able to account for everything which a god may have created. Otherwise your statement is subjective and unjustified.

There is no validated argument that there is a requirement for a creator. You feeling that natural explanations for existence are unsatisfying does not establish such a requirement. God is an explanation which explains nothing that can't be explained without recourse to undetectable entities, Occam's Razor is a good enough reason to slice off such an 'explanation'.

Yes I understand this as well and as I've said the leprechaun does not account for anything which is unknown, so why invoke something unrequired to attempt to illustrate your point, when it doesn't? If you have proof to show a god is not required, then use it. Otherwise your position simply becomes one of wishful thinking.

Leprechauns (and other faeries) accounted for plenty that was unknown when belief in them was popular.

Yes I knw what they consider them to be. But their considerations hold no value, unless you can justify what you believe to be true. Surely there's more to it than this?

For rational skeptics, that's it. No more reason not to believe in God than we have for not believing in ghosts, faeries, the Loch Ness monster, or any other proposed entity for which there is insufficient evidence. Well, certain versions of God are absurd, like one that's omniscient, omnipotent, omnbenevolent, and free willed all at the same time...THAT God is clearly just the result of generations of people claiming their God is better than anyone else's without thinking it through.

That seems an odd question. If there is only one option, no alternatives are required.
Existence was either created (or the indreict product of) or uncreated. If created, then there is a creator. If uncreated everything is pure chance/random/eternal.

That seems a false dichotomy. What is your evidence that uncreated things are pure chance/random/eternal?

Until the eternal or chance can be proven to be a valid option as opposed to just an option, the requirement for a god cannot be removed. Conversely, on the incredibly low chance that god appears and is 'proven' to exist, this would remove the requirement for alternatives.

We can imagine more valid options than you can, apparently.

Nothing does not cause existence, nor does nothing entail eternity.

It might be as simple as something exists because nothing can't exist. You do not know enough to eliminate natural processes as a likely explanation for existence existing. And if existence must have an entity to explain it, the existence of the entity that explains it must also require one. Can you provide such an explanation for the existence of a Creator? You're only moving the big question back to a placeholder you call God.

You can have no problem with it, that's fine as a personal choice. But you need to rationalise it to others if you want it to be understandable or worthwhile. Just removing god on the basis of leprechauns is frail position to hold.

The leprechaun comparison is only an illustration of how frail is the position that you hold. That's the entire point of it. It's a challenge to provide a justification for believing in the existence of God that can't also be applied to the existence of leprechauns. That you are stuck at 'wah, don't compare God to leprechauns' illustrates that it's a challenge you can't meet.

Let's accuse anyone who is not an atheist to be a theist. The classic and predictable retort.

Confusion about the position of someone who only states what they are not is to be expected.

---

Not really the burden of proof is on either side to affirm their conclusions is correct based on either proving or disproving a god, or a natural alternative(s) In the absense of an alternative, you cannot remove god validly, you only remove it based on your personal preference to do so. Atheists may claim the burden of proof is on theists, but they will only receive 'amens' from other atheists by stating this. You may maintain that this burden lays elsewhere, but until atheists accept what proof they need to provide for their position to be considered valid, they will never reach any non-atheists. This is another reason why atheism is viewed as a structured belief, in that it's a shared view which only atheists consdier to be true/valid.

It's the null hypothesis which must be disproved before accepting that an entity exists.

You've misinterpretted what I believe. I don't have a defined god, I just have left the possibility of a god existing open.

Then you literally don't know what it is you're talking about, which is a good enough reason to reject your assertion that something you can't define actually exists.

It's amazing that the vast majority of athiests think otherwise. I would guess you've based your view on a "us vs. them" mentality.

Maybe if you were up front about your position you would have a different experience, Mr. 'I'm not a theist OR an atheist'.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

Nope. It's just that belief in something actually existing that can't be distinguished from things that are imaginary is not rationally justifiable.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

I don't think anyone actually does that. Some of us do try to limit our entire life and views on what is probably not imaginary.

You're in no position to state that apart from your personal beliefs in what science can do. It seems science has become a new religion (scientism), odd that people use it to refute god, which is a question it probably cannot, and is not looking to, answer.

It is true that science is unequipped to prove that imaginary beings don't really exist.

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

It is impossible for all supernatural beliefs to be true. It is not impossible for all supernatural beliefs to be false. It is highly likely that any particular supernatural belief is false based on the innumberable other supernatural beliefs that exclude any particular belief. Rejecting all supernatural beliefs is more reasonable than accepting any of them, based on chance alone.

So your view of delusion is anyone who is christian and to justify this, you take the exception to illustrate this? I have no idea how fundamentalists justify many things they do, whether it's in the name of religion or otherwise. Killing and abusing children is horrendous and these fuckers should be shot, however that these people use religion to justify their actions does not denigrate all religious people. You seem too eager to jump to conclusions using extreme examples.

And you seem too eager to keep the baby in with the boiling bathwater.

Yes there are contradicting views amongst all sects of religious groups and within non-religious groups. I'm not sure what this proves. Do you think there is one prevailing (religious or non-religious) group or individual who is correct? and if so, why?

I think the group of people who don't believe in supernatural entities is the group that is correct. Would you be kind enough to point out how we contradict each other?

[houseofcantor]

I don't hate anyone. I'm naturally a blunt douchebag. It wasn't your sig, dear. That was enough was what I was saying. Every single one of your posts has been a protestation of love and while I think love is great, you're leaving a virtual paper trail a mile long. If that woman ever gets kidnapped, they are knocking on your door first.

A mile? I am the artist ellenjanuary - since 2003 these protestations of love are collectively all over teh netz and stored in my mind as the two million word Book of Gwynnite. What you speculate should not be a problem because I have faith that who and what I am is part of evolution and emergence.

Otherwise, let 'em come. Courts can't touch me - they would have no choice but to declare me criminally insane and lock me away in the padded cell.

But fuck no, I ain't going within a mile of that girl. I'll try to keep the protestations down - but it is effective use of idolatry.

[Blam!]

---

Not really the burden of proof is on either side to affirm their conclusions is correct based on either proving or disproving a god, or a natural alternative(s) In the absense of an alternative, you cannot remove god validly, you only remove it based on your personal preference to do so. Atheists may claim the burden of proof is on theists, but they will only receive 'amens' from other atheists by stating this. You may maintain that this burden lays elsewhere, but until atheists accept what proof they need to provide for their position to be considered valid, they will never reach any non-atheists. This is another reason why atheism is viewed as a structured belief, in that it's a shared view which only atheists consdier to be true/valid.

---

"structured beliefs" is weak argument to pin "religious" on Atheists. The definition of "belief" doesn't imply the religion as modifier for "belief". The belief alone doesn't make the one religious. it'll take more than just belief, the things like faith, prayer, spiritual and having deity. Atheism has some structure of belief, but with basis of reason, logic and critical thinking - Hardly religious. If theist claim the existence of god with faith, then the burden of proof rest on their shoulders by default, no exceptions. the one could argue this conclusion may come with faith:

"atheists believe in no god" or..
"atheists don't believe in god"

Which is one of Theists' common assertion.

---

You've misinterpretted what I believe. I don't have a defined god, I just have left the possibility of a god existing open. It's amazing that the vast majority of athiests think otherwise. I would guess you've based your view on a "us vs. them" mentality.

---

You're agnostic, I presume? [correct me if I'm wrong] You mentioned you don't have "defined" god, that's understandable. To be honest, I simply don't agree nor trust with the religious claims made by theists that defined to suit their needs. There's the possibility of extraterrestrial life on a planet orbit a star of somewhere in billions of galaxies. If one of extraterrestrial life are responsible of our creation, I wouldn't consider them as "god" which is defined by theists and religion - I considered them as one of sentient beings or "extraterrestrial life" if you prefer. The concept of "god" is preposterous and wishful thinking - it's pitiful to see the vast majority of people deluded themselves and yearning for salvation. - as if they are lost lambs.

---

You're in no position to state that apart from your personal beliefs in what science can do. It seems science has become a new religion (scientism), odd that people use it to refute god, which is a question it probably cannot, and is not looking to, answer.

---

If you are referring Scientology as my personal beliefs, so no. Once upon time, ancestors thought the lightnings are Thor's hammer, God's fury or whatever. Later, science refuted and extracted the superstitious belief out of the equilibrium.

I agree Science and Faith is mutually excessive, but sometimes the dimwits trying to push the pseudosciences like Creationism and ID into science to reinforce the faith - is absolutely insane. Sometimes, it's really sad that people had to use science to hammer the sense into these deluded people.

---

Lifestyle with science doesn't sound bad. Hell, It's better lifestyle than lifestyle with limited perspective of our understanding the universe.

I've got no idea what you're saying here.

---

Science provided mankind with many things like agriculture, technologies and education. Get the idea? Sure, religion gives the one with purpose of life, bah, bah. But if they think religion make better lifestyle than one without science, they're sorely mistaken. Think of modern medicine, vaccines and many things. Science does not limit lifestyle, religion does -well, I meant religious fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalists meddle the scientific progress like stem cells, CERN and LHC. The technology of stem cells could potentially save daddy's little girl - maybe give daddy the purpose of life with her daughter. Religious dimwit like former president Bush vetoed against Stem Cell for religious reasons, for example.

---

So your view of delusion is anyone who is christian and to justify this, you take the exception to illustrate this? I have no idea how fundamentalists justify many things they do, whether it's in the name of religion or otherwise. Killing and abusing children is horrendous and these fuckers should be shot, however that these people use religion to justify their actions does not denigrate all religious people. You seem too eager to jump to conclusions using extreme examples.

---

I didn't intend to denigrate all of the religious people. There's nicer, rational religious people - delusional they may be, I don't think them the same to religious fundamentals like Islam terrorists. it's just the superstitious beliefs are harmful to humanity to some degree.

---

Yes there are contradicting views amongst all sects of religious groups and within non-religious groups. I'm not sure what this proves. Do you think there is one prevailing (religious or non-religious) group or individual who is correct? and if so, why?

---

My point was that there is no such thing as "true religion", religion is an culture that is defined by humanity to suited their needs. I don't mind civilized religion, but other religion that promotes hatred, misogyny, practice of slavery and practice of monogamy must be stopped immediately.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

1: There is no evidence for a god or gods

This is irrelevant and does not prove or justify anything. This argument assumes its conclusion by saying you cannot disprove something which does not exist. Without providing a valid alternative (which you should have done in point 2), you're left stranded.

Actually, it removes everything that could possibly be explained by a god or gods. Given the lack of evidence, there is neither need to assert nor believe in such a being's existence.

2: Everything that is attributed to god or gods has other explanations that better describe the observable universe.

Everything? Try the creation of existence.

Is this where the atheist invokes a long string of gods from Norse, Greek, Jewish, Muslim faiths to discount any worldy event which can be accounted for scientifically. These elucidate nothing.

e.g As Thor has been proven to not create lightening, therefore no god exists.

What are these better explanations you speak of?

The difference is either saying "I dont' know why the universe is here" or "God did it."
Unfortunately for the latter explaination, that hypothosis is entirely made up and has no evidence-based backing (see #1).
However, there are other hypothosis that exist that are based on our current knowledge and theories in quantum mechanics that DO in fact, explain why our universe exists.
As such, there is more going for a non-religious explaination of the universe than ALL religious explainations.

3: The idea of god was obviously a primitive try at explaining the world by people ignorant of the facts. most of the first part of genesis is just a sort of 'just so' story,(google rudyard kipling if you dont know what these are).

Not at all. We just have different questions now. If you have answers please outline these. Just because some events which can be accounted for by not invoking a god, atheists seem to think this refutes a god.

The difference between atheists and theists is that atheists don't pretend to have answers that we don't. Theists fill in the blanks with made up explainations and go with it - often flogging scientific explainations along the way in order to keep their delusions viable - like the young-earth ideas from the religious communities versus the big bang theory. The former breaks all laws of physics and biology (among other sicences) while big bang fits in perfectly with everything we've observed to this point.
As such, atheists have not 'refuted' god so much as found no place for one nor found any reason for one to need to be. We don't believe in god because there is NO reason to believe in god - any god.

4: The idea of an after life is just wishfull thinking that has no scientific basis in fact.

So science and humanity can measure everything that is, and as it is? If you say yes you're deluded, if you say no, you have no basis for using "fact" as a basis for your position.

That sounds like an answer for someone who can't come up with anything qualitative to say about the matter.
There is no evidence for an afterlife. Period.
Therefore, there is no reason nor evidence to conclude that one exists at all. To believe otherwise is, as he said, wishful thinking.

5: There is no reason to think that anything 'supernatural' exists ouside of wishfull thinking or fear.

If you limit your entire life and views on what science can measure you will miss many things.

The thing about 'limiting' myself to science is that it's not a limit at all. It simply allows me to know where I stand and knowing where I stand is far, far superior to making up answers and believing in it really hard because those aren't really answers at all.
Religion has no answers or really anything that can be backed up by investigation of reality and there is no reason **AT ALL** to believe that god exists.
Therefore, one answer is entirely delusional (religion, god, faith) and one that is entirely based on what we can see and measure. (Science).
I'd rather limit my life on what we know rather than what we believe because the former is entirely delusional and made up.
The former is not. There is no comparison.

6: The ability of man to self delude is well documented.

Does this refute your position? or only everyone who disagrees with you?

You ARE amusing when you squirm to come up with an answer that you can't.

7: there are so many contradictory faiths. (my wife is a spiritualist whose beliefs are completely different to your beliefs but are just as real to her as yours are to you, so eiher you are wrong she is wrong or both of you are wrong, I vote for the latter).

You have your belief, which I think is wrong - we could debate that til the cows come home.

That there are many contradcitory faiths, doesn't lend itself to meaning yours is correct.

Atheists don't believe in god. That's the only thing that seporates us from everyone else - that we DON"T believe in something.
Stop trying to pigeonhole yourself into an arguement you cannot win in the precious time you have before getting banned once more.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

We get that you are in love with whatsherface. It's basically what your signature says. How long are we to be subjected to these professions of love?

Well said; fucking tedious ain't it.