How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

V

VitalOne

Banned
Banned
We all know faith is "belief without evidence" and atheists have belief without evidence that there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no karma, no afterlife, no soul, etc....thereby making atheism 100% faith-based to very highest possible limit

So where do you atheists grasp your faith from? What made you turn into atheists...is it just because one day you woke up and thought "it just doesn't feel like God exists" like most atheists?

Atheists cannot say something is unknown until it becomes verifiable, they must say something is false while unverifiable...this demonstrates their 100% faith-based belief system
 
Last edited:
The same way I explain away unicorns and the tooth fairy.

Oh and btw this probably slipped by you but when you make a claim that there is a god, afterlife, etc etc the burden of proof is on you not the folks who don't accept your claims on a say so.
 
To believe in God, sometimes means you should change your approach with the world in order to believe in Him; that is difficult for people and they create centers to feel better with themselves. Like the belief that there is no God, and we should not seek for Him; it would be very easy to live with those beliefs, because you don´t need to do anything.

For a person that believes in God, but haven´t experienced Him, it is difficult to devote your life trying to experience the ultimate experience. So some people create a concept of God, on which you don´t need to seek for Him, and that is the same center as believing that there is no God.
 
Sock puppet path said:
The same way I explain away unicorns and the tooth fairy.

Oh and btw this probably slipped by you but when you make a claim that there is a god, afterlife, etc etc the burden of proof is on you not the folks who don't accept your claims on a say so.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof also then lies on the atheist who make the positive claim that there is no God, no afterlife, etc...there's lots of evidence that God, karma, heaven, hell, a soul, etc.. exists just nothing atheists would consider because atheists have already made up their mind to reject and deny ALL possible evidence and say "see God doesn't exist"

But unicorns and fairies have completely different attributes, properties, and characteristics from God/karma/an afterlife/or a soul...how can you say something is false because something else unrelated is false? It doesn't make sense, its non-sequitur and illogical...
 
VitalOne said:
The burden of proof also then lies on the atheist who make the positive claim that there is no God, no afterlife, etc...
Click to expand...
What about the atheist who simply says "I don't believe because I don't find the evidence convincing"? They aren't making any sort of positive claim.
 
It's existence is highly unlikely, given the lack of evidence. In addition, the evidence is prolific that human culture creates religions, that we use selective attention to emphasize the events that support our predetermined opinions and at the same time dismiss events that contradict our beliefs.

Furthermore, belief in a literal heaven and hell is a misinterpretation of the original message. Other primitive concepts like "soul' may be dismissed as early attempts at science, not unlike the "humours" theory of disease.
 
Nasor said:
What about the atheist who simply says "I don't believe because I don't find the evidence convincing"? They aren't making any sort of positive claim.
Click to expand...

But the only evidence can only be shown if you are seeking for it. That is the difference between a scientific discovery and a religious one: Lao-Tzu, Zarathustra, Gautam Buddha, Pitacoras, Socrates, Jesus, Atisha, Mohammed, etc... made religious discoveries, but they cannot be shown to you, unless you follow a path of self-knowledge and devotion to seek the truth about this (to seek for God). On the other hand, there is a scientific discovery, that you simply tell to everybody, and nobody needs to discover it again.
Why would you need to re-discover something that has already been discovered? Because the path to know God is different for every single person (different experiences, different circumstances), so a person that experienced God can only tell you that it is possible, and point to the "top of the mountain". But you are going to have to "climb your way to the mountain" from the spot you are stading right now, and not from the spot they were standing when they "climbed the mountain up to the top".
 
spidergoat said:
It's existence is highly unlikely, given the lack of evidence. In addition, the evidence is prolific that human culture creates religions, that we use selective attention to emphasize the events that support our predetermined opinions and at the same time dismiss events that contradict our beliefs.

Furthermore, belief in a literal heaven and hell is a misinterpretation of the original message. Other primitive concepts like "soul' may be dismissed as early attempts at science, not unlike the "humours" theory of disease.
Click to expand...

No, the existence is likely or possible based upon the current evidence...eventually it'll all be known as a scientific fact...

God - the source of all, ever-existing at all times, the absolute truth, the origin of all things....

soul - the thing that gives us consciousness, free-will, etc...existing independently of the brain

heaven/hell/afterlife - different universes, worlds...

So lets see, currently neurologists are unable to fully explain how consicousness arises from purely chemical reactions and matter, so something existing outside of the brain giving us consciousness is possible or likely, then you have the many-worlds interpretation which says there are infinite universes and the many-minds interpretation which says that there is no reality independent of the observer....so its only matter of time when these things are proven, then everything I say will be known as the truth...
 
On the contrary, both evolution and Chaos Theory explain how complexity can emerge through simple causes. It is not necessary to postulate a creator to explain complexity.
 
spidergoat said:
On the contrary, both evolution and Chaos Theory explain how complexity can emerge through simple causes. It is not necessary to postulate a creator to explain complexity.
Click to expand...

It also isn't neccessary to postulate a creator when it comes to the Great Pyramids...there's a statistical chance it was nature and causeless chance...

There was a first intelligent cause...but that wasn't God...

Eventually it will be known that the many-worlds interpretation is true, just as many physicists speculate, then near the sametime it will be known that the many-minds interpretation is true, and that this is just your own personal universe/space-time/reality...then a while after that it will be known that after death you enter into a new reality or universe (which can be heavenely or hellish depending on your karma or the thought-energy superimposed onto you), then a while after that it will be known that there is something from which all the universes/realities arise from, which is the origin of all things, from which all things emanate, eternally existing outside of the system..it will be known as impersonal at first, then much later on as personal and impersonal (God)...can't wait for the year 7138...

Ofcourse, atheists being fools do not consider that it can be true, they really actually believe that evidence causes something to become true, something is false until proven true....what fools
 
VitalOne,

How do you explain the almost psychotic nature of your strawman arguement that atheists (or non-believers as they are commonly called) hold a "belief" or "faith" that there is no god, heaven, hell, etc.?

Answer me these questions three:

Do you have faith that there is no advanced alien civilization on a planet orbiting the outermost star in the nearest galaxy of the Virgo Supercluster?

Do you have faith that there is?

Or do you simply have a complete lack of conviction or interest in such an ultimately un-provable, unsupported claim?

I'm going to tell you right now something about myself. I have no conviction whatsoever one way or the other regarding god, heaven, hell, etc. It's such an un-provable, unsupported claim that I have no interest in it other than debating the reasons others do have faith in such an idea.

Will you admit right now that there is at least one athiest you know of that has answered your OP and shown it to clearly be a misguided question to begin with?

What say you?
 
VitalOne said:
Ofcourse, atheists being fools do not consider that it can be true, they really actually believe that evidence causes something to become true, something is false until proven true....what fools
Click to expand...
And this.

Anything that is dreamt of could be true. No atheist here claims that a thing is false until proven true. By your statements, you must believe the opposite -that everything is true until proven false!

Any rationalist simply has nothing to say about unsupported claims. Might there be a god? Sure! But until now, you've shown no reason to believe one exists, therefore we will simply go with the best we have and say that the universe appears to be without supernatural or universal intelligence behind it.

Does this make any sense to you?
 
Atheism a Religion?

Athiesm, Darwinism, Evolutionism, they're all different sects of of the same RELIGION, aren't they? I mean by the definition of Religion, This qualifies this blind belief as religion. I mean, it is blind, because there is no substantial proof. Blind faith in the dogmas and the decrees of the faith of evolutionism is astounding. "I have not seen so great of faith, no not in all of Israel"
 
amishmafia said:
Athiesm, Darwinism, Evolutionism, they're all different sects of of the same RELIGION, aren't they? I mean by the definition of Religion, This qualifies this blind belief as religion. I mean, it is blind, because there is no substantial proof. Blind faith in the dogmas and the decrees of the faith of evolutionism is astounding. "I have not seen so great of faith, no not in all of Israel"
Click to expand...
You are defining a demonstrated reality (evolution) as a religious belief? Funny stuff there...
 
VitalOne said:
We all know faith is "belief without evidence" and atheists have belief without evidence that there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no karma, no afterlife, no soul, etc....thereby making atheism 100% faith-based to very highest possible limit
Click to expand...

Your somewhat mistaken in your assumptions. Atheist simply don't accept the claims of theists, whether they be gods, angels, devils or the boogyman, simply because theists have yet to demonstrate a single one of their claims.

So where do you atheists grasp your faith from? What made you turn into atheists...is it just because one day you woke up and thought "it just doesn't feel like God exists" like most atheists?
Click to expand...

No, we are forced to live on a planet full of theists who continuously bombard us with their silly claims, you know, the ones they are unable to demonstrate.
 
VitalOne said:
We all know faith is "belief without evidence" and atheists have belief without evidence that there is no God, no heaven, no hell, no karma, no afterlife, no soul, etc....thereby making atheism 100% faith-based to very highest possible limit

So where do you atheists grasp your faith from? What made you turn into atheists...is it just because one day you woke up and thought "it just doesn't feel like God exists" like most atheists?
Click to expand...

By redefining atheism as "lack of belief", which is akin to "lack of conceptualisation" and means they have (HA!) no opinion (/HA!) on religion.
 
Verbal acrobatics.

atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
 
from a- "without" + theos "a god"

SAM fails.







I do have a god. My god is beer. Sweet, sweet delicious beer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top