How do atheists explain their faith-based disbelief?

[VitalOne]

Argument from ignorance - "The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true."

I am not claiming that god doesn't exist. I am saying I will not believe that he does until there is evidence. Our opinions are really not the different VitalOne - You say that you neither believe nor disbelieve. I say (more accurately) that I don't believe until there is evidence and only then I will.

Uhm....can you please explain to me the difference between "Not believing something is true until there's evidence" and "Saying something is false until proven true"....the only way there's a difference is if you neither believe nor disbelieve until its verifiable...you however clearly do not take this stance

My analogy was not intended to prove/disprove god. I was trying to explain my position on gods in a way that a theist would identify with as they will have the same stance toward mythical beasts that may have existed.

Well if your analogy doesn't show how the existence of God is less likely, then how can you say it shows why you don't believe in God when it doesn't, as you just stated prove/disprove God?

But it is your analogy that does not hold. There is evidence to support the theory of relativity. If you wanted to compare two theories with zero supporting evidence then your analogy might be a valid one. My analogy is valid as I am comparing two entities which have (so far) zero evidence to support their existence. I'm not saying they never existed. I am saying I wont believe that either existed until there is evidence - which is the most rational approach.

So then according to you my analogy works perfectly, all I have to do is take the theory of relativity and some other theory with the same amount of evidence thats completely unrelated, then say well if one isn't true, that proves that the theory of relativity is false some how....

Superluminal you are the only one who makes things clearer.

Only to you and other foolish atheists, who have abandoned all logic, rationality, and reasoning in place of personal incredulity...why can't you guys just say its unknown until its verifiable?

 

[superluminal]

...why can't you guys just say its unknown until its verifiable?

Are you serious?

That's what we've been saying! God is an "unknown" and worthy of nothing more than chit-chat and speculation until some credible, solid evidence is brought forth. What thread have you been reading??? (on what planet?)

 

[VitalOne]

Are you serious?

That's what we've been saying! God is an "unknown" and worthy of nothing more than chit-chat and speculation until some credible, solid evidence is brought forth. What thread have you been reading??? (on what planet?)

No you don't...why do you enjoy repeatedly lying to yourself? You've said repeatedly all over this forum that you don't believe God exists, there is no God, etc.....you never said "well God's existence is unknown until it becomes verifiable"

Also what can be considered concrete, solid evidence besides "well if God came down"?

 

[Xev]

You've said repeatedly all over this forum that you don't believe God exists, there is no God, etc.....you never said "well God's existence is unknown until it becomes verifiable"

Oh, you're lying. How nice.

Why do people - I mean beyond being stupid, or dishonest or both - have this hangup about athiests admitting that our beliefs are faith-based? Do you think that we're going to magically say "oh! our beliefs are equally irrational, I'll give everyone who believes in God a crisp $20 bill!"

The most you could prove would be irrationality, which doesn't bother the existentialists or nihilists among us that much, so why do you keep beating your dead horse? Even if you're right, you're still ugly and your arguments are still boring.

 

[superluminal]

...and your arguments are still boring.

Yes, this is becoming mind-numbingly dull. Next subject?

 

[Xev]

Yes, this is becoming mind-numbingly dull. Next subject?

Why the theists are so damned fascinated by us.
It's like, I really like the t.v show "House, M.D." A friend of mine doesn't find it as awesome as I do, so we don't go out of our way to watch it together.
The behavior of theists is like - me bringing up his taste in t.v and criticising it every time we hang out, and constantly discussing the merits of House.

 

[shaman_]

Uhm....can you please explain to me the difference between "Not believing something is true until there's evidence" and "Saying something is false until proven true"

"Not believing something is true until there's evidence" - When you say this you are not saying it is false. It could potentially be true - lots of things could potentially be true. You are just not going to believe that they are until there is evidence. Until then you lack the belief that they are true.

....the only way there's a difference is if you neither believe nor disbelieve until its verifiable...you however clearly do not take this stance

That really isn’t that different from the stance I take though. You are saying that you neither believe nor disbelieve, I am saying that I do not believe therefore I lack the belief.

See we are not really that different. You have a lack of belief as well.

Well if your analogy doesn't show how the existence of God is less likely, then how can you say it shows why you don't believe in God when it doesn't, as you just stated prove/disprove God?

That analogy isn’t the reason why I don’t believe in god. It is merely a way of explaining atheism. It is used to demonstrate that theists behave like atheists towards other entities.

So then according to you my analogy works perfectly, all I have to do is take the theory of relativity and some other theory with the same amount of evidence thats completely unrelated, then say well if one isn't true, that proves that the theory of relativity is false some how....

The analogies don’t prove anything.

Only to you and other foolish atheists, who have abandoned all logic, rationality, and reasoning in place of personal incredulity...why can't you guys just say its unknown until its verifiable?

I agree that it is unknown so I lack the belief that god exists.

 

[superluminal]

Why the theists are so damned fascinated by us.
It's like, I really like the t.v show "House, M.D." A friend of mine doesn't find it as awesome as I do, so we don't go out of our way to watch it together.
The behavior of theists is like - me bringing up his taste in t.v and criticising it every time we hang out, and constantly discussing the merits of House.

House is the most awesome asshole in tv history. I love it!

 

[amishmafia]

Are the theist really that facinated by the atheist, are do we just find it sickly comical that the atheist have completely missed out on the greatest truth of the universe " because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God neither were thankful but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened, professing themselves to be wise they became fools ......... I guess it just depends on how ya look at it. sickly comical or quite sad, or ..... well.... NEXT POST!!!! LOL

 

[Neildo]

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

Without ever having read a holy text, would you be thinking about all the things that are in your religion? Heaven, Hell, angels, all that?

I'm sure most people would at sometime or another think of some kinda creator out there, but they wouldn't go into all the silly details that most religions do. I'm agnostic and believe there's gotta be something out there, but I'm not naive enough to say what it all may be, let alone try and convince other people that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. Heaven, Hell, angels, etc etc? Please. That's the silliness with religion, and what people dislike about evangelists, actually claiming and filling in all those gaps that we have no idea about and then trying to force it upon others.

Religion is philosophy, nothing more. All you're doing is believing in some other person's interpretations to the mysteries of life, rather than trying for your own self to figure it out and believe in your own thing. Unlock the mysteries yourself and you'll find enlightenment, not from someone else, although it may help guide you. Why do you think Jesus went on his 40 day journey? To find enlightenment. If you don't do that yourself, you're just a lost soul.

Jesus, or any other prophet for that matter, is no more correct in his or her beliefs than you or I, otherwise, as the athiests say, prove it, and you'll be left fiddling with your lower lip looking silly as you try and come up with a reasonable answer. Otherwise be like other philosophers and prophets and write your own book. Hey, L. Ron Hubbard did it and look at all his followers. It's easy to convince lost souls that haven't gone on their own spiritual journey to figure it all out.

- N

 

[spidergoat]

V1...the same amount of circumstantial evidence that there was some intelligent cause behind reality is about the same amount of circumstantial evidence that abiogenesis occured...

Anyone can make wild conjectures without evidence. What is your evidence, then?

V1...attributes, properties, and characteristics from the God I believe in....

What are those properties?

V1...Where'd you get that number from? "Oh let me see...whats a good number, oh I know!! 99.9999%....checkmate!!!"

Can you show me how you calculated this? If not, then please STFU

Actually, it's an underestimate. It's more likely that exactly one hour ago you thought about a duck covered with purple spots playing the piano, drew a picture of it, and mailed it to your Aunt Tilly in New Jersey.

 

[scorpius]

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.

funny you should post such rubbish on science forum
get some education plz...
www.atheists.org
www.talkorigins.org

 

[Jeff 152]

Its not that hard, lets say there is a body of information about god (testimonials, scientific experiments, etc etc)

some people will look at all of the information and conclude that there is a god, they believe that the information presented as premises prove the existence of god, that the existence of god is a logical consequence of the information--these are theists.

some people will look at the information and conclude that there is no god, they believe that the information presented as premises prove the nonexistence of god, that the existence of god can not possibly be a logical consequence of the information and thus god can not exist--this is an extremely small percentage of atheists, so called "strong" atheists who are just as irrational as theists by claiming that they can be certain of a subject where the information is incomplete.

some people will look at the information and conclude that neither conclusion "god exists" or "god doesnt exist" can logically follow from the information given. Thus, this person can assert no positive belief in either, since neither would be a logical conclusion. now the person who stops there and says we will never have the information to come to either conclusion is an agnostic. the person who takes it one step further and decides that due to occams razor the simpler answer must be preferred until more evidence is found and thus lacks the positive belief that god exists, but also does not assert that he has logically disproved the existence of god, is an atheist in my sense and the sense of the other atheists on this forum.

when i flip a coin, i dont believe it will be heads or believe it will be tails, i do not assert a positive belief either way because i believe there is no way to know for sure. the stance now is one of apathy. this is like agnosticism.

now assume someone comes along and says "i believe the coin will land on heads" when someone takes a stance like that, the viewpoint changes. If the claimer can offer no evidence of his belief(or at least i dont accept his evidence as sufficient) then i will not give his claim validity and i will not believe his claim. Now does this mean i believe the coin will land on tails? not at all. in my mind i know very well that it may land on heads, but this does not change the fact that i do not put faith into the claim. I lack a belief in the claim, but i do not disbelieve it. The person who in response to this claim says "well i believe that the coin will not land on heads" is the strong atheist who is just as irrational as the theist.

its hard to word exactly what i mean, do the other atheists kind of agree with my portrayal?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No, its defined as belief without evidence by atheists (like Dawkins) and theists alike...

That is a valid definition. Words in the English language typically have multiple definitions. Faith also has the alternative definition of unconditional trust. Ever hear the statement "I have faith in you"?

Whats the contradictory evidence?

Here are a few pieces of evidence against any claim of 'God' man has ever made:

* The claim of 'God' has existed since any history has been recorded. Since that time, there has been zero supportive evidence of that claim.

* There are loads of objective assertions made in any scripture (i.e. 'word' of 'God'). A huge amount of those have been directly proven incorrect through science.

* There are loads of contradictory statements made by scripture. Reality does not support contradicton.

* Humans naturally anthropmorphize... that is take human features and put it them on *something*. This gives rise to talking toasters, bugs bunny, mother nature, father time, and of course 'God' (putting human features on reality).

* Humans psychologically want infalllible authority figures giving them approval. They psychologically want to have a great relationship with themselves. They psychologically want to group together and be 'purposed'. 'God' becomes that authority figure, becomes a proxy between the consious and unconscious (for establishing a relationship with yourself), and becomes the source of a purposing.

* Humans are genetically prone to 'believe' as it is a survival requirement to make quick decisions with incomplete information or to accept what the 'group' accepts to gain their support and resources.

 

[Tiassa]

Keep in mind that the religionists seem to demand that atheists do more research and more work than any of the faithful will ever put in. Belief is easy. Truth is hard.

 

[(Q)]

Great faith-based attempts used in order to preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system...."oh you're just lieing, you're lieing, I can't explain why, but its a lie, its a lie, case closed"

ROFL!!!! These atheists crack me up so much

So, you can lie all you want and it's somehow my fault?

And, you actually need someone to explain the lies to you?

What will your god think of you?

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam,

I beg you, please explain "This is God ---> ." to me.

I made a statement; give me your opinion of it.

 

[superluminal]

I made a statement; give me your opinion of it.

Ok. Give me some evidence that supports the notion that a roughly 2 x 2 pixel dot on my computer screen has the attributes of what we commonly think of as a god. Then we'll talk.

That's what I think.

 

[Nutter]

The atheistic priesthood has been thoroughly indoctrinated with the dogmas and tenets of their faith. Men and women of such faith will tend to be rabid and fanatical at times, however, we will take this into consideration when graciously assessing their proclamations

You are a complete nutter.

"Nutter" is the family name.

And no, you can't have my avatar.

 

[iceaura]

Woah, none of that showed how your atheism isn't faith-based or based upon belief without evidence...I mean you didn't even show to even the slightest most remote extent...you just used the argument from ignorance again, like most atheists do...they really think evidence causes something to become true...

No. They think evidence causes something to be believeable.