Atheists don't "know" there is no God.....

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

That's just gotta be the worst analogy I've encountered, anywhere.

Most fail attempt at being clever this forum has ever seen.

omg your eunuchorn is so #ed up and drunk he's puking rainbows, LOL! Your mood is anhedonic? You're so intelligent, I don't even know what that means.

More super witty analogies:

Atheists are like the little engine that couldn't. Atheists are like caterpillars that are too enthralled by caterpillar life to begin metamorphosis. Atheists suffer from anosmia, and mock the people smelling the flowers. Atheists have reached a dead-end in life's hedge maze, but they are satisfied so they remain there.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

The question was put simply to atheists; "prove God does NOT EXIST"

Prove fire golems don't exist in the Earth's core.

Prove there isn't an invisible alien spacecraft flying around Jupiter.

Prove Bertrand's teapot isn't orbiting around the Sun, between Earth and Mars.

Know your fallacy.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence. It's quite rational to disbelieve in things that lack evidence. We don't have to prove crap. Burden of proof is on the theist. Just as the burden of proof would be on me, and not you, if I claimed fire golems lived in the Earth's core.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

You realize there are others that do not define (pigeon hole) themselves as either Atheists, Theists; OR AGNOSTIC

I'm aware of many more labels, yes. What's your point? What's this have to do with my reply to that member?

or belief in something you clearly do not understand

Fun fact. More than 70% of atheists in the USA were once Christian. Funny how often theists make this silly assumption the atheist doesn't know squat about religion.

I myself was never religious. I was once a deist.

or are out of your depth.

I'm not, no.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
You cannot wiggle your way out of this using a reverse argument.

It's not a 'reverse argument' it's basic logic.

Can you not think for yourselves.

Yes hence my rejection of the claims made by theists.

The question was put simply to atheists; "prove God does NOT EXIST" if in disagreement (why do care one way or another);

Well that's two questions, the first is a logical fallacy and the second is irrelevant to the topic.

you obviously have a concrete belief system in place that dismisses the idea of a higher being (Creator) so much so your insistence regarding your 'truth' resembles hammer blows (or flogging).

Theists insist they have the truth, the truth of all existence and reality....while atheists merely reject that claim.

If you feel that pointing out fallacies and contradictions are 'hammer blows' then you probably should consider them no?

And 'belief' is for theists and their books of stories about stories about talking animals and unicorns etc...

How do you manage this arrogance, the Egotism?

You think that questioning and rejecting theists claims of knowledge of the creation of the universe and all reality is 'arrogant' and egotistical then i'm 100% certain you don't know the meaning of those words....

Why are atheists so angry?

Projection 101.....

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.

"Lack of belief" is to suspend belief on a subject and to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism and not atheism. Atheism is the belief/concept that there are "No-God(s)". As Theism is the belief/concept that there are "God(s).

Just as the burden of proof would be on me, and not you, if I claimed fire golems lived in the Earth's core.

Not really. If you claimed there are fire golems in the earths core, your idea will be simply dismissed as the idea that "there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter" category.
Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, just as the fire golems, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.
That in other words means, that we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it because it ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection, as it is our nature to do this.

(Just my 2 cents on that matter.)

Peace

originally posted by: Seed76
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.

"Lack of belief" is to suspend belief on a subject and to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism and not atheism. Atheism is the belief/concept that there are "No-God(s)". As Theism is the belief/concept that there are "God(s).

Only if you use the wrong definition for the term 'atheist' as you have here. 'Agnosticism' by itself makes no sense, it has to accompany either atheist or theist in this context.

Not really. If you claimed there are fire golems in the earths core, your idea will be simply dismissed as the idea that "there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter" category. Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, just as the fire golems, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it. That In other words means, that we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it because It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection, as it is our nature to do this.

The same should then be said for ghouls, ghosts, gods, spirits, werewolves, leprechauns, centaurs, hydras, dragons etc etc etc.

a reply to: Seed76

"Lack of belief" is to suspend belief on a subject and to hold off judgment until more information is acquired.

My "lack of belief" in the God of the Bible is NOT suspended, pending more information. I flat out reject that God and any other claim of a creator deity or a personal god.

For the sake of argument, I have found a way to define "God" that fits within my personal parameters of "belief", in that I believe that it is possible that the Universe itself is a conscious collective of all that exists, past, present and future, that gave rise to itself. But I flat out reject any concept of a creator god that exists outside of the universe, yet intervenes in human events here on Earth.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Only if you use the wrong definition for the term 'atheist' as you have here.

Allow me to disagree here. As a Greek i have a good idea as to what "Atheos" means.

'Agnosticism' by itself makes no sense, it has to accompany either atheist or theist in this context.

"Agnosticism" does not have to accompany anything. Because simply " Agnosticism" is the position of i do not know(in our particular case, if there is or not a God). A Theist concluded, based on his/her evidence that there is a God(s), as an Atheist concluded, based on his/her evidence that there is no God(s).



Peace

originally posted by: Seed76
Allow me to disagree here. As a Greek i have a good idea as to what "Atheos" means.

Lol what? you think being Greek makes you an authority?

atheos m (genitive atheī); second declension

an atheist, term applied to those who thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society

No mention of a claim, just the rejection of the claims made for the existence of gods.

"Agnosticism" does not have to accompany anything. Because simply " Agnosticism" is the position of i do not know(in our particular case, if there is or not a God).

Not knowing what? it's meaningless without context...

A Theist concluded, based on his/her evidence that there is a God(s), as an Atheist concluded, based on his/her evidence that there is no God(s).

Still making the same mistake, atheists merely reject the claim that theists make, and the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim, whether you're Greek or not....

a reply to: Seed76

They are mutually compatible, and they often go hand in hand.

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." ~ Huxley

Knowledge on the matter of god's existence is out of our realm of knowing. So we cannot say with objective certitude no god exists. Which I am not. Nor are most atheists I speak with. Disbelief doesn't require possession of that knowledge.

For instance my example about the invisible spacecraft:

Do you posses actual knowledge there isn't an invisible alien spacecraft zipping around our solar system? No you don't. Does that prevent you from having disbelief that thing exists? No it doesn't.

Not really. If you claimed there are fire golems in the earths core, your idea will be simply dismissed as the idea that "there is an ice cream factory on Jupiter" category.

One's reason for disbelief is their own. It can be a ridiculous reason, or a very well thought out one. People have all sorts of reasons for disbelief in things.

The Bible is in the same category as an ice cream factory on jupiter for me. Belief in 'god' itself, apart from all religion, is a much more palpable notion.

Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, just as the fire golems, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.

As I do with the notion an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent god would do and think the things the Bible describes. Easily dismissible as the ridiculous things they are. Since Yahweh and the Bible are intimately connected, they both get dismissed together. Same for Zeus and the mythology it comes from.

we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and his only begotten son Raptor Jesus. Consider this an official introduction.

because it ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection, as it is our nature to do this.

So where in this spectrum would you place your belief in the existence of the FSM and his son Raptor Jesus?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: cooperton
An Atheist is like a blind man claiming that colors don't exist

That's just gotta be the worst analogy I've encountered, anywhere.

Most fail attempt at being clever this forum has ever seen.

omg your eunuchorn is so #ed up and drunk he's puking rainbows, LOL

! Your mood is anhedonic? You're so intelligent, I don't even know what that means.

More super witty analogies:

Atheists are like the little engine that couldn't. Atheists are like caterpillars that are too enthralled by caterpillar life to begin metamorphosis. Atheists suffer from anosmia, and mock the people smelling the flowers. Atheists have reached a dead-end in life's hedge maze, but they are satisfied so they remain there.

Being Anhedonic means I can fully accept that the argument about the difference between an atheist & an agnostic is the most fruitless discussion anyone could ever have in their pathetically long term conditioned lives.

Your caterpillar reference works better when applied to humans as a species, imo.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Fun fact. More than 70% of atheists in the USA were once Christian. Funny how often theists make this silly assumption the atheist doesn't know squat about religion.

Another fun fact: Christians in Roman times were once called atheist.

Further, the term atheist has always been a slur invented and used by thoroughgoing religious fanatics for thousands of years. It's so ironic that people relate to the atheist or unbeliever, and are even proud of their labels, when they are notions that are nothing more than superstitions and myths, invented by superstitious and myth-believing people. It's hilarious to watch people squabble over which superstitious slur they fall under.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you are insinuating I have such pride in the label, I do not. Labels are merely used for convenience in discussion for me. The underlying ideas is what matters. So no I don't wear it like a badge of honor or anything.

“In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.” ~Sam Harris

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If my statement doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply to you. Just sharing some interesting facts.

However I do disagree with Sam Harris that taking a religious-invented pejorative is a sound reasonable people make.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The question was put simply to atheists; "prove God does NOT EXIST"

Prove fire golems don't exist in the Earth's core.
Prove there isn't an invisible alien spacecraft flying around Jupiter.
Prove Bertrand's teapot isn't orbiting around the Sun, between Earth and Mars.
Know your fallacy.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence. It's quite rational to disbelieve in things that lack evidence. We don't have to prove crap. Burden of proof is on the theist. Just as the burden of proof would be on me, and not you, if I claimed fire golems lived in the Earth's core.

I am not a 'theist'; you have addressed and mailed this query to the wrong "occupant" (return to sender).

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Okay. That's fine, man That doesn't change you said something fallacious.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

VHB: You realize there are others that do not define (pigeon hole) themselves as either Atheists, Theists; OR AGNOSTIC

Lucid Lunacy: " I'm aware of many more labels, yes. What's your point? What's this have to do with my reply to that member?

It interests me that you categorize belief systems but you don't have a grasp on ALL of them; cannot define them. To your mind it seems there are only two, Atheists and Theists. You know there is the Agnostic as well. I am none of the three.

VHB: or belief in something you clearly do not understand

LucidLunacy: Fun fact. More than 70% of atheists in the USA were once Christian. Funny how often theists make this silly assumption the atheist doesn't know squat about religion. I myself was never religious. I was once a deist.

Belief in the existence of God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority. God created the world and its natural laws but takes no part in its functioning. So what caused your rejection of this ideology; (not believing by/through a "faith" in great belief of in the premise? or not adhering to the premise as turned out to be untrue for yourself). Religious theology has nothing to do with a personal understanding a creator being. Religion is just big business; some of that 70% of Atheists may entertain that notion.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

However I do disagree with Sam Harris that taking a religious-invented pejorative is a sound reasonable people make

I read that quote as him not investing heavily in the label itself and suggesting others don't as well. He doesn't appear to be squabbling over which religiously invented slur to use, so much as saying it should ultimately be disregarded entirely.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: vethumanbeing
Okay. That's fine, man

That doesn't change you said something fallacious.

Enlighten me as to what was actually said that you may have misunderstood (benefit of the doubt here given).

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

One's reason for disbelief is their own. It can be a ridiculous reason, or a very well thought out one. People have all sorts of reasons for disbelief in things.

Which is why i said on my previous post

That in other words means, that we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it because it ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection, as it is our nature to do this.

So where in this spectrum would you place your belief in the existence of the FSM and his son Raptor Jesus?

Concerning FSM in the realm of non-existence since i ate it for dinner. So no more FSM. As for the second part of your assertion concerning Raptor Jesus. I know for fact that the Raptors lived in somewhere in Cretaceous Period. Now whether or not their name was Jesus i do not know. So all in all your assertion about a Spagheti that is flying and have a Raptor son named Jesus...well.....

Peace