How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

[Xev]

Unfortunately for you, I know for a fact that Cheerios exist and you will be jailed and tortured for your blasphemy.

*Runs away*

THERE IS NO GOD BUT FRUITY PEBBLES!

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...

I love word games, puns, verbal banter, that Hepburn-Tracy shit.
Unfortunately, they're no fun when there's one person patiently explaining something and the other runs around screaming about how I'm gonna burn in hell.

 

[VitalOne]

I love word games, puns, verbal banter, that Hepburn-Tracy shit.
Unfortunately, they're no fun when there's one person patiently explaining something and the other runs around screaming about how I'm gonna burn in hell.

Well if you really did burn in hell, then by direct exprience you would know that hell exists....then finally you would understand what religious advocates were saying about direct experience...would that be enough evidence?

 

[S.A.M.]

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 can't lack belief. Belief is not based on evidence, it is a faith in a concept, which means the presence of the concept is a given; and considering by all the things that atheists do NOT consider as theism (ie faith in the concept of God), they don't lack belief, they disbelieve.

 

[Xev]

Well if you really did burn in hell, then by direct exprience you would know that hell exists....then finally you would understand what religious advocates were saying about direct experience...would that be enough evidence?

I've had direct experience of trees talking to me, so who knows?

Sure, but if hell exists and the religious people are right, then I'm going to hell with Slayer, the Doors, Hunter S Thompson and loads of very cool people.

PARTY IN HELL WITH SLAYER!

 

[superluminal]

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

What a load of crap and/or dung.

I will accept:

1) A personal visitation from god, followed by:

2) God accompanying me on a verification trip to several universities for controlled testing.

3) A repeatable demonstration by god (at my request, under conditions of my choosing) of long dead bodies resurrected from the grave.

4) God transporting me and a cadre of scientists of my choosing to the current location of one of the Voyager space probes where we will instantaneously transport it back for examination.

5) God causing the sun to "go out" for a day (while protecting the earth from any ill effects) while various satellites gather data.

6) God creating a new lifeform, significantly different from any earth life, and submitting any number of samples for extended examination.

I could go on...

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"

Ha! And why wouldn't god come down and do those things to satisfy our simple curiosity?

No. You and your ilk are so full of self deluded fantasies it cripples you and blinds you to reason.

 

[superluminal]

Well if you really did burn in hell, then by direct exprience you would know that hell exists....then finally you would understand what religious advocates were saying about direct experience...would that be enough evidence?

It sure would. Do you have direct experience of hell? And if (as I suspect) you don't, then why the FUCK do you believe in it???

 

[S.A.M.]

Xev: difference between lack of belief and disbelief.

This is God ---> .

 

[superluminal]

Xev: difference between lack of belief and disbelief.

This is God ---> .

Hey! This is fun!

Let me try:

The existential crisis surrounding the inductively deduced and abductively concluded nature of a supposed divine being is clearly a result of the non-selfreferential assessment of subjective experiences as they relate to external or objective realities, assuming that such realms of knowledge can even coexist.

What this means is: Here's god ---> $

See! I can play too!!! Yay!

 

[Xev]

This is God ---> .

MY LORD! I HAVE SEEN THE ERROR OF MY WAYS AND I REPENT!

 

[VitalOne]

What a load of crap and/or dung.

I will accept:

1) A personal visitation from god, followed by:

2) God accompanying me on a verification trip to several universities for controlled testing.

3) A repeatable demonstration by god (at my request, under conditions of my choosing) of long dead bodies resurrected from the grave.

4) God transporting me and a cadre of scientists of my choosing to the current location of one of the Voyager space probes where we will instantaneously transport it back for examination.

5) God causing the sun to "go out" for a day (while protecting the earth from any ill effects) while various satellites gather data.

6) God creating a new lifeform, significantly different from any earth life, and submitting any number of samples for extended examination.

I could go on...

ROFL....its like someone saying "Well I'll believe pluto existed if I step foot on it, otherwise its just a delusional lie"..this is the only evidence you would accept...

Ha! And why wouldn't god come down and do those things to satisfy our simple curiosity?

No. You and your ilk are so full of self deluded fantasies it cripples you and blinds you to reason.

Great 100% faith based beliefs....these foolish atheists..."your wrong and deluded because I say so...see your claims just aren't true because I just say so...CASE CLOSED, I win!!!"

As for why won't God come down, its mainly because God doesn't care...the truth exists for those who seek however for the fools (athiests) who really think evidence causes something to become true and have no type of independent mind the truth escapes them...such fools maybe one day when they directly experience hell they'll know it exists...such a foolish way of seeking proof

It sure would. Do you have direct experience of hell? And if (as I suspect) you don't, then why the FUCK do you believe in it???

Actually I do have direct experiences of hell...reality is made of thought-energy, hell is made of anger, sorrow, fear, etc...

Why the FUCK do you disbelieve it? I know why, its because you being a fool (also known as an atheist) believe that evidence causes something to become true, without evidence something is false, therefore only things that there's evidence for at the present time must be true, thats why...you can't get through your thick atheistic skull that there are innumerable things that true without evidence, just as in the past...the truth is the truth with or without evidence...

Your beliefs are 100% faith-based...why do you sustain them?

 

[S.A.M.]

MY LORD! I HAVE SEEN THE ERROR OF MY WAYS AND I REPENT!

Well you can't call yourself a philosopher if your epistemology is weak.

PS. did you get the point?

 

[shaman_]

nor can atheists even tell us what they would accept...

I respectfully request that you stop repeating this lie VitalOne.

 

[glaucon]

Honestly, how long is this insanity going to continue??

Logically, there is no such thing as faith-based disbelief.

Belief necessarily implies assertion. Disbelief, if asserted, is nothing more than the logical denial of an asserted belief (not the denial of the existence of the object of that belief). To say that one denies belief in A is not the same as the denial of A.

Seriously, if this inane Theist/Atheist argument is going to resurrect itself every thread or two, can we at least try to get the logic straight?

An atheist denies the existence of god based upon nothing less than the insignificant amount of reliable evidence in support of a deity-supporting hypothesis (call this faith in the scientific method if you must...). A theist asserts the existence of god based upon subjective experience, historical fictions, and arguments involving unsupportable and/or unverifiable entities (call this faith, per se).

 

[S.A.M.]

The scientific method is based on reliable evidence in support of? Do tell.

 

[S.A.M.]

I respectfully request that you stop repeating this lie VitalOne.

Are you defending a lack of belief? *mind boggles*

 

[spidergoat]

It is not reasonable to believe things that merely may be true. You could still investigate things, based on the possibility of their being true. I believe some things based on personal experience that I realize would be irrational for someone else to believe, so I don't expect them to.

 

[S.A.M.]

Hey! This is fun!

Let me try:

The existential crisis surrounding the inductively deduced and abductively concluded nature of a supposed divine being is clearly a result of the non-selfreferential assessment of subjective experiences as they relate to external or objective realities, assuming that such realms of knowledge can even coexist.

What this means is: Here's god ---> $

See! I can play too!!! Yay!

Missed the point, huh?

 

[shaman_]

Are you defending a lack of belief? *mind boggles*

Is honesty worth anything to theists? *mind boggles*

 

[VitalOne]

Honestly, how long is this insanity going to continue??

Logically, there is no such thing as faith-based disbelief.

Belief necessarily implies assertion. Disbelief, if asserted, is nothing more than the logical denial of an asserted belief (not the denial of the existence of the object of that belief). To say that one denies belief in A is not the same as the denial of A.

Seriously, if this inane Theist/Atheist argument is going to resurrect itself every thread or two, can we at least try to get the logic straight?

An atheist denies the existence of god based upon nothing less than the insignificant amount of reliable evidence in support of a deity-supporting hypothesis (call this faith in the scientific method if you must...). A theist asserts the existence of god based upon subjective experience, historical fictions, and arguments involving unsupportable and/or unverifiable entities (call this faith, per se).

ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another great atheistic tactic...don't get tricked and fooled by this foolish atheist....

Either way whether its belief or disbelief its faith if its "belief without evidence"

For instance if I said "the many-worlds interpretation is definitely true" or I said "the many-worlds interpretation is definitely false" both require faith...regardless if I'm believing something is true or false...so funny you saying its "logical denial" ROFL...so funny

Oh yeah, you're right "unverifiability = false" ROFL...

 

[S.A.M.]

Is honesty worth anything to theists? *mind boggles*

Its always wondrous to me how confused atheists are about obvious and direct concepts.

e.g. This is God---> .

Now what is your opinion on that?