Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

I just did, completely my creation in support of the OP title, you refuse to respond with a counter because you do not have one, http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-deities-theory.516057/page-5#post-1068102654 you concede, next in line step up to the plate.

You wont argue with Matt, thats all part of your dodging the proposition routine and you know we can all listen on his radio show, when you going to show him your stuff (or in this case your lack of stuff)? I will be sure to tune in.

Conspiracy theory? Here we go folks the holocaust now conspiracy theory, someone hit the bottom of the barrel! LMAO How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

When the quoted text makes up the largest part of your argument it is illogical to say it supports the argument.
I have no need to, since your premise is flawed. Simply I lack belief, because there is no evidence to consider forming a belief on. Now should you offer evidence to suggest a belief is needed I will be interested.

 

You people are unbelievable! You think you can condense a full set of proofs down to a 3 word statement? Seriously?

The counter argument to my premise is not repeating your premise ad infinitum ffs, you see anyone with even rudimentary logic skills can immediately and correctly conclude the atheists arguing here have zero knowledge of logic or reason.


Is what atheists are putting out here as their logical arguments

Did + logical proof
Did not
Did + logical proof
Did not
Did + logical proof
Did not
Did + logical proof
Did not
Did + logical proof
Did not
Did + logical proof
Did not
Did + logical proof
Did not

How do you expect me or anyone else here not to LOAO

If its not obvious atheists are the did not + 'nothing', aka 'Lack of something'



Oh and how do you know you lack belief? was that embedded into your brain, no thoughts necessary is that how you lack belief?

 

You do not need pages of drivel to understand the argument, there is nothing to have to form a belief on, and until you show otherwise I will keep repeating it. Show some evidence worth having a belief on.

 

Nothing worth forming a belief on, just as if you were to fabricate a complete lie about anything else, show me evidence or stop wasting my time.

 

I sympathize.. i have been banging my head against the wall, 'reasoning' with the 'New Internet Atheist!', with moving goalposts, fallacy as argument, & other orwellian New Speak redefines. IMO, it is an exercise in futility, & will only drive a rational person to madness.

 

It really is quite simple, please show anything to indicate gods are worth forming any belief on.

 

You can believe that God does or does not exist (or don't know/don't care) and still be a reasonable person. You can even change your mind as often as you see fit.

Chastizing others who beleif differently than you without being able to provide proof- that doesnt exist EITHER WAY -is what intolerant religiously indoctrinated nutjobs do.

Atheists who denegrate theists for an unprovable spiritual beleif are demonstrating and acting upon the very same unreasoned 'blind faith' as the religious they denegrate as god/spirit cannot be disproven any more than proven.

Most atheists dont engage in religion bashing, just like most theists dont bash atheists. Its the small, loud minorities of both that become convinced that they're right and everyone else is (morally) wrong for believing differently. These are dullards masquerading as intellectuals, using peer pressure and manufactured popularity to bolster their numbers just as every major religion has done since recorded history.

It seems likely to me to be a social agenda to use these faux-intellectuals as pawns in the creation of a new 'godless' religion, with all the social controls and doctrines and political symbiosis of major religions of the past but without any of those pesky morals and values that get in the way of the ultimate goal- fanatical, unreasoned devotion to the Almighty State.

 

Gods are just rumours, why should I give a rumour the credence of belief. Best ignore rumours unless there is evidence.

 

Why should i have to convince you of anything? I'm just here for some rational debate, & thoughtful discussion. I don't mind you having different beliefs, whether they are wrong or right. But don't you find it strange that the New Internet Atheists don't even have 'beliefs!'? They don't 'believe' in a God, but they cannot say it like that. ..too much New Speak, for me.

 

What part of my post gave you the impression I was trying to convince you to give credence to rumours? Just dont be a dick to folks who believe differently than you if you cant prove them wrong, is all I really said.

 

an Atheist has found no proof of any God(s) that are believable, they do not have to disprove all God(s)

 

the only goalpost is if you want others to believe in your God, prove your God is more then just a myth like all other God(s)

 

'moving goalposts' is a logical fallacy, used by irrational debaters. It is not a field goal that proves the existence (or not) of God.

..and i have no desire to 'prove' anything to you, or anyone else. I am mildly interested in philosophical debate, but not with irrational 'debaters', who move goal posts around..

 

It's very simple. Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy? How about magical elves living in the Scottish Highlands?

If you answered "no" to either/both, you LACK BELIEF in those mythical creatures.

 

You have been really overthinking this. Lets use an example so you can understand. Lets take garden gnomes. Do you believe that garden gnomes ever existed? Yes or no? Do you believe they never existed? If yes, what is your evidence they never existed? If you don't believe in garden gnomes but won't claim they never existed then that is how I approach God.

 

Vishnu, Kali, Buddha, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Shiva ....

 

Except for the zillions who aren't Christian.

 

you just changed the game. your OP was about LACK OF BELIEF, not 'believing something doesn't exist'.

 

There is no evidence one does exist.

Beyond that, a general negative can never be proven.

 

there is not a jot more evidence for the existence of the judeo-christian deity than there is for any other deity.

 

Actually, Santa is based on a real person.

 

If you're arguing that a man (possibly) named Jesus once lived, you're wasting your time. No one here is suggesting that that can't be true. The argument is against claims to supernatural powers. Obviously.

 

That isn't false witness. It would be denying Christ - pulling a Peter.

 

You can't provide any evidence that 3000 other gods don't exist, so they must all exist. Therefore your god is just one little goddy amongst many.