How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

Oh fuck. We're non-believers allright? We don't deny the (incredibly slim odds) possibility. Just like we don't deny the (incredibly slim odds) possibility of Russells Teapot.

Why is this such a continuous source of confusion and strawman debate tactics? It's stupid. Plainly and simply stupid.

This is surely a testament to the incredibly limited and rigid (read brainwashed) mentality of theists?
 
lack of belief in god = without gods, hmm

lack of belief in <insert concept> = without <insert concept>, hmm

ergo, I don't believe you ;)
 
superluminal said:
Oh fuck. We're non-believers allright? We don't deny the (incredibly slim odds) possibility. Just like we don't deny the (incredibly slim odds) possibility of Russells Teapot.

Why is this such a continuous source of confusion and strawman debate tactics? It's stupid. Plainly and simply stupid.

This is surely a testament to the incredibly limited and rigid (read brainwashed) mentality of theists?
Click to expand...

actually its a testament to the lack of noninductive thinking in atheists; but its okay, if you don't believe in it, you don't have it and hence, it does not exist, especially for you.:)
 
S.A.M. said:
So if you don't believe in a penis, it means you don't have one.:bugeye:
Click to expand...

I lack a penis and a belief in God. I also lack patience for rehashing this. I have patience for hash, though.

superluminal said:
No. It means that Xev may have some direct and compelling evidence for penises. Maybe...
Click to expand...

How you dooin?
 
S.A.M. said:
actually its a testament to the lack of noninductive thinking in atheists; but its okay, if you don't believe in it, you don't have it and hence, it does not exist, especially for you.:)
Click to expand...
Lots of nice words that mean nothing. Explain again to me the incredible advantages of inductive thinking and how they relate to instances of actual reality?
 
S.A.M. said:
actually its a testament to the lack of noninductive thinking in atheists; but its okay, if you don't believe in it, you don't have it and hence, it does not exist, especially for you.:)
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with the first two prongs of that argument, besides tautology: if I don't believe in God, I don't have a belief in God.
The latter deals with more epistimological concerns, and I suppose your answer to it would depend on how you approach the problem of "truth."

If I didn't believe in Cheerios, if I had never seen a Cheerio or experienced their yummy goodness, I would not believe in Cheerios and they would have no relevence to my life. Whether or not Cheerios exist is irrelevent.
That's basically how I feel about God.

educate yourself plebian; science has advanced beyond the flat earth society
Click to expand...

You do realize that "science" has not seriously considered that notion since, well, the Pre-Socratics?
 
Xev said:
There's nothing wrong with the first two prongs of that argument, besides tautology: if I don't believe in God, I don't have a belief in God.
The latter deals with more epistimological concerns, and I suppose your answer to it would depend on how you approach the problem of "truth."

If I didn't believe in Cheerios, if I had never seen a Cheerio or experienced their yummy goodness, I would not believe in Cheerios and they would have no relevence to my life. Whether or not Cheerios exist is irrelevent.
That's basically how I feel about God.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, I know for a fact that Cheerios exist and you will be jailed and tortured for your blasphemy.
 
(Q) said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes they have, there's enormous amounts of evidence available, just nothing atheists will accept...nor can atheists even tell us what they would accept...almost as if atheists just say that in order to make themselves appear rational when they know they really have made up their minds to never believe in religion or anything supernatural

(Q) said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nor can you allow us to demostrate it...lots of evidence is given, but nothing ever satisfies the atheist, so you ask them what will all you will get is "well if one day God came down" or "revive an amputee's leg" and thats it...almost as if the atheist is saying "Well I'll believe you when pigs fly"
 
S.A.M. said:
By redefining atheism as "lack of belief", which is akin to "lack of conceptualisation" and means they have (HA!) no opinion (/HA!) on religion.
Click to expand...

How is "lack of belief" different from "no belief" or "believing something isn't true" unless there's a lack of belief and disbelief or neither belief nor disbelief?

For instance, if I said "I lack belief that OJ Simpson murdered his wife" how is it different from believing OJ Simpson didn't murder his wife UNLESS I lack both belief and disbelief?

See, atheists enjoy playing these word games, they just can't admit they lack belief but sustain disbelief, thereby making their claims entirely faith-based...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top