The Religion of Atheism

Oh? How so?

 

Woman I said "don't @ me"
Because while agnosticism is logical and valid - both deism and atheism are illogical and thus, a blindly held belief.

Atheism is not a skepticism of god, that is agnosticism.
Atheism is the statement that THERE IS NO GOD.
It would be logical to say "I severely doubt God's existence until further notice"
It is illogical to make the statement that there can be no god.

Atheism is a blindly held belief just like deism, thus, they are the same

 

But, it's logical to say that since there is no reason to believe there is a god (and some logical reason why there can't be) that the best position is to assume there isn't one until evidence is presented to give you a reason to think there is one. One should always allow for the possibility of anything, but the reasons to think there is a god are close enough to 0 that the distinction isn't important practically.

 

Right you're just rearranging what I said.
It is logical to say you're waiting for evidence.
It is not logical to run out and claim God does not exist, period.

That you disregard proof of God does not mean the proof is nonexistent.
If you do not find the argument compelling, fine,
but that does not mean the argument is nonexistent.

 

LOLOL

Same old sh-t.
Atheism is a disbelief, not a belief.

I believe, I will stop for the next red light, but I can assure you.
I will not pray to it.

 

But it is logical to fight against any action that assumes one exists. It is also logical to say that it is irrational to believe or act as if one exists.

If there were proof, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. If it's not compelling, then it's not proof. There are lots of things that people believe, and, you could even call that evidence, but very very weak evidence.

 

An important point about 'proof' while we are at it. Literally anything that can be possibly explained by things that we know exist can't be used to explain things that don't exist. No matter how improbable something is, if it is possible to explain it with things we know exist then the explanation must be no more fantastical than that explanation. And, with that, pretty much any evidence of supernatural things essentially get us right back to zero.

 

you: 1+1 is 2 but I'm gonna say 3 anyway because I want 3 to be true.

what about them? YOu still hung up on that?

I know we need to pay the dictionaries off to print it so every one believes it without question like they did with lack.

you are talking evidence, perfectly within the boundaries.

Nope thats your department.

I know you just feel it so its gotta be twu!

yeh see it your way or you will spend 5 pages name calling.

then again probably not.

everyone goes into court with proof, yet we have courts. LOL damn you have a short sighted view.

more court language that its unlikely you understand the meaning.

If the only evidence is witness then it stands, sorry. Seems plenty of people witnessed what they call God and no one witnessed god as nothing but neoatheists.

Its irrational.

Its equally irrational to if someone acts as if one does not exist.

Not exactly, ocnsequential

never know, depends on how complete the explanation is.

that makes no sense.

 

Ok, I'll play it your way:
Nah huh!

 

And, I guess whoever does that the most wins? That how this works?

 

at least you compressed it down to a few words instead of several paragraphs only to take it to the same conclusion.

sux when someone uses reason to rationally rebut every single one of your points dunnit

 

You haven't rationally done a thing.

 

I can only lead you to the water grhasshoppa.

 

Lol, I wouldn't know. I've desperately been trying to get any arguments out of you, let alone rational.

 

Since these are the closest things you had to arguments I'll blow them up since I have a little time.

So, we are not talking about a court case, that's a stupid way to determine reality. The legal system doesn't have a monopoly on evidence. We are looking for a much more stringent definition of evidence. If you ever want to come down to reality and agree on anything we can work on that. However, in the meantime witnesses are the worst possible evidence you can have. That's been shown over and over again. Every bit of witness testimony can be explained with drugs, hallucination, brain damage, visual illusion, pareidolia, etc etc. If it can be explained with real things, then there is no reason to dig into completely imaginary things to try to explain then. And if they can be explained with real things, they aren't really even evidence of imaginary things being real. As much as you want smurfs to be real, there is no evidence, sorry, I know smurfette was your last hope.

 

Well feel free to give us the agnostic details about what they base their logic on. And imaginary connections or self delusion is still zero.

 

Well that certainly explains your inability to deal with facts or logic.

 

Noted than you cannot meet my challenge. You fail again. A pattern has developed. Let me repeat my challenge:

Prove that anything you chose doesn't exist. And I guess I should be more precise so that you cannot confuse a definition with a thing. Should be easy for you since that is what you demand of athiests.

And I note you still haven't been able to discredit the comparison between god and unicorns.


thing
THiNG/
noun

1. 1.
   an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
   "look at that metal rail thing over there"
   synonyms: object, article, item, artifact, commodity; More
   
   
2. 2.
   an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
   "I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"

Feedback

 

"Saying atheism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby. I've never been skiing. It's my biggest hobby. I literally do it all the time"

 

saying that atheism is not a belief system is like saying water isnt wet.

 

BTDTBTS, you fail to recognize proof when it bites you in the ass.

Proved your contradiction and you claim you are the winner SSDD.

Courts have developed procedures for handling evidence, they do not operate on 'what they want to hear' is evidence and 'what they dont want to hear' is not evidence like you and the other neo atheists do around here.

They use procedures to judge what evidence is, for you its whatever suits your whim and that bar gets higher every post.

really? which one is that? Something that agrees with you?

No agreeing with you is not coming down to reality, better luck next time.

When you have nothing else they are what you got and its legitimate like it or not.

Really? News to me, cite it please.

But you just told me nothing is real therefore nothing can be proven, care to explain why you think there are real things now?

math isnt real.

one of 3 choices.

you have given no facts, thats your worst mistake, that you think you have put out facts.

 

Not believing in something is not a belief system.

 

only neoatheists would say that.
its a position based upon a belief something is not true and everything that follows.
Do you buy into the neoatheist delusions?

 

I'm not a 'neoatheist'....so apparently it isn't something only a neoatheist would say. I say it, because it's true. Not believing in something is just not believing in it and not some sort of 'belief system'
Do you consider not believing in Santa Claus or ghosts as a 'belief system'? Of course not. You just simply don't believe in those things. It's not different when someone doesn't believe in the invisible man in the sky.

 

well then whatever school you went to I am glad I did not because your whole premise is faulty.
not believing
is the identical to
believing not
to say its not as others have is delusional.

to choose one foundation without accepting that a plethora of associated beliefs follow as a result of a different foundation is also delusional.