10 Myths about atheists debunked

[Papageorgio]

Look at all the examples today of atheists on this board who degraded those that believe in God. Then they play victim when people don't like them.

Atheists and their belief system is not relevant to me.

Atheists branding themselves as victims, is funny.

 

[Hollie]

Look at all the examples today of atheists on this board who degraded those that believe in God. Then they play victim when people don't like them.

Atheists and their belief system is not relevant to me.

Atheists branding themselves as victims, is funny.

It appears to me that you are the one playing the victim card.

 

[BluePhantom]

An atheist, post a story written by an atheist to make themselves look like victims.
Poor atheists are misunderstood, poor atheists, everybody hates them, poor atheists the world is picking on them.

You know how often I think of atheists? Never, don't care, I learned about them and don't give them a thought. Then the victim atheists posts their propaganda here and want us to sympathize with their plight.

Silly victims.

I had the same thoughts when I read the story but didn't deem it worth my time to point it out. It seems to me the author doth protest too much. The reality is, as I have said many times, the vast majority of theists and atheists don't give two hoots about the perspective of the other. They are busy with their own lives and couldn't care less about what someone else believes or does not believe. But with all demographics there exists a fringe element that takes things to extremes and they are the ones that get the press. That in turn influences public opinion to suggest that all members of a given demographic believe the same way as the extremists do.

What we see on USMB, for the most part, is the extremists on all sides, because (generally speaking) only the extremists have nothing better to do with their time than pound their opinion on an anonymous message board. Thus, I would argue that the views reflected at USMB by most members (I suppose myself included) is not representative of the standard views among the public on either side. The article posted is basic propaganda targeted toward an extremist atheist audience, in response to extremist theist views, in order to make the atheist feel better and comforted, and the theist look like idiots. Only the extremists care. The rest read it and say "yeah whatever" and move on with their lives.

 

[Papageorgio]

Look at all the examples today of atheists on this board who degraded those that believe in God. Then they play victim when people don't like them.

Atheists and their belief system is not relevant to me.

Atheists branding themselves as victims, is funny.

It appears to me that you are the one playing the victim card.

I'm not a victim, you have a whole article that pins the victim, believe what you want.

I think it's amusing.

 

[G.T.]

I think the evidence is 50/50 if we were created. We being big we: the universe or multiverse or "all that ever was."

Theres no evidence anything was supernatural or that religion is believable at all, period.

But the back thought of "all that exists" as having been created or not created stands on equal ground.

We could be a computer program.

Science has not concluded an origin of "all that exists,"

So agnosticism is the only rational position when speaking on "existence."

 

[guno]

Even if there is no God, there are serious problems with atheism.

Part of the belief in "god," is a corresponding belief in the incalculable value of human life. To an atheist, humans are simply highly-evolved animals, having no more intrinsic value than any other animal. Hence, it is OK to release fresh water from vast reservoirs in the California mountains in order to provide conveniences to fish and other wildlife, while people who could otherwise use that water suffer. Humans have no more right to the water than the fish, eh? Atheists worry equally about "endangered species" and human suffering (though they would deny it vociferously). The proof is in the countless situations where human rights and prerogatives are taken away in the interest of, for example, "preserving wetlands."

An atheist has no problem with abortion because a fetus is just tissue, until the mother decides that she wants to nurture it. Same for euthanasia, and if atheists are honest, they would have no problem exterminating the severely retarded, severely deformed, elderly with total dementia, or people in a persistent vegetative state. The world would be a better place, don't you know.

Atheist leaders in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and elsewhere were responsible for massive killings in the interest of attaining political objectives.

Atheists have no rational justification for altruism or charity. They depend on "Government" to take care of the poor, the homeless, widows and orphans, both at home and abroad. How many atheist organizations are analogous to Catholic Charities - which provides food, shelter, medical assistance, drug counseling, etc., expecting NOTHING in return from the beneficiaries? I count ZERO.

Atheists disdain the lessons of history - as codified by most religions in their commandments, mitzvots, whatever: the importance of a strong & robust institution of Marriage, the importance of a sound and solid nuclear family, and they deny the harm done by "victimless" crimes such as prostitution, drug abuse, and adultery (assuming discretion).

Worst is the arrogance of atheism. In effect, atheists believe that, in essence, each one of them is a "god," capable of absolutely defining good and evil based on their own personal knowledge and experience. The idea that there might be some higher power or supervening intelligence is inconceivable and absurd.

Yet essentially all atheists claim to be "good people," and "nice guys."

Anyone can be "good" if you allow them to define what "good" is.

Part of the belief in "god," is a corresponding belief in the incalculable value of human life

The Right-Wing Doesn’t Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities, So Let’s Talk About Christian Atrocities

The Right-Wing Doesn t Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities So Let s Talk About Christian Atrocities Americans Against the Tea Party

 

[BluePhantom]

Even if there is no God, there are serious problems with atheism.

Part of the belief in "god," is a corresponding belief in the incalculable value of human life. To an atheist, humans are simply highly-evolved animals, having no more intrinsic value than any other animal. Hence, it is OK to release fresh water from vast reservoirs in the California mountains in order to provide conveniences to fish and other wildlife, while people who could otherwise use that water suffer. Humans have no more right to the water than the fish, eh? Atheists worry equally about "endangered species" and human suffering (though they would deny it vociferously). The proof is in the countless situations where human rights and prerogatives are taken away in the interest of, for example, "preserving wetlands."

An atheist has no problem with abortion because a fetus is just tissue, until the mother decides that she wants to nurture it. Same for euthanasia, and if atheists are honest, they would have no problem exterminating the severely retarded, severely deformed, elderly with total dementia, or people in a persistent vegetative state. The world would be a better place, don't you know.

Atheist leaders in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, and elsewhere were responsible for massive killings in the interest of attaining political objectives.

Atheists have no rational justification for altruism or charity. They depend on "Government" to take care of the poor, the homeless, widows and orphans, both at home and abroad. How many atheist organizations are analogous to Catholic Charities - which provides food, shelter, medical assistance, drug counseling, etc., expecting NOTHING in return from the beneficiaries? I count ZERO.

Atheists disdain the lessons of history - as codified by most religions in their commandments, mitzvots, whatever: the importance of a strong & robust institution of Marriage, the importance of a sound and solid nuclear family, and they deny the harm done by "victimless" crimes such as prostitution, drug abuse, and adultery (assuming discretion).

Worst is the arrogance of atheism. In effect, atheists believe that, in essence, each one of them is a "god," capable of absolutely defining good and evil based on their own personal knowledge and experience. The idea that there might be some higher power or supervening intelligence is inconceivable and absurd.

Yet essentially all atheists claim to be "good people," and "nice guys."

Anyone can be "good" if you allow them to define what "good" is.

Part of the belief in "god," is a corresponding belief in the incalculable value of human life

The Right-Wing Doesn’t Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities, So Let’s Talk About Christian Atrocities

The Right-Wing Doesn t Want to Talk About Christian Atrocities So Let s Talk About Christian Atrocities Americans Against the Tea Party

See post #43. I rest my case

 

[Hollie]

Look at all the examples today of atheists on this board who degraded those that believe in God. Then they play victim when people don't like them.

Atheists and their belief system is not relevant to me.

Atheists branding themselves as victims, is funny.

It appears to me that you are the one playing the victim card.

I'm not a victim, you have a whole article that pins the victim, believe what you want.

I think it's amusing.

Actually, you are the whining, crying victim.

 

[PratchettFan]

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer. Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position. I have never met an Atheist who was neutral and could provide evidence to support their position. Therefore, Atheism is based upon unsupported belief - which makes it a belief system. It is a belief system which is entirely god-based.

It's silly to suggest that making reasoned assessments and then reaching conclusions about matters is gods-based. You're letting your fundamentalist beliefs color your comments. It's also silly and pointless to suggest that all conclusions are gods based.

In the absense of evidence, and in the absense of evidence for magical, supernatural entities, it is entirely rational to conclude that magic and supernaturalism are not elements of the natural, rational world.

You continue to hope to impose your religious beliefs on others. You need to work on that.

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

Anyone who demands evidence for a lack of belief in god should provide evidence for every other god they don't believe in.

The issue at hand is the claim that Atheists lack belief. Saying one lacks belief does not make it so.

Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. Do you disagree with that statement and, if so, why?

 

[PratchettFan]

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you.

But you were telling me that in the absence of evidence neutrality is correct. Neutrality implies equality. If you are neutral between two propositions then you are treating them as equally likely. As my absurd ghost of Nixon example was meant to demonstrate: this is not always true. These are hardly irrelevant issues.

I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

Yes and no. A belief that something does not exist (due to insufficient evidence or definition) is NOT the same as the belief that something does exist. Rejection of a claim is not the assertion of a new claim.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Because if it did exist, it could be defined.

Yes. Neutrality does indeed imply equality. It means that one does not place any more weight to the statement there is a god than the statement there is not. If one says that either proposition is more likely than the other, then they are placing more weight on that proposition. Therefore, they are not neutral.

The statement that something does exist and the statement that it does not are exactly the same. Both require one of two things. Either evidence in support or belief. If there is no evidence, then it is belief. It can be nothing else.

As to your final claim, that is simply false on its face. Reality does not require humans to define it to be real. Reality got along just fine before there were humans to be aware of it and just fine when humans thought lightning was thrown by Zeus. The only thing our inability to define something means is that we are unable to define it. It has absolutely no impact on whether or not it exists.

So we return to my original claim, which is pretty much the only claim I am making. Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief. I've asked the others, now I shall ask you. Do you disagree with that and, if so, why?

 

[PratchettFan]

It would be silly. Except one cannot make a reasoned assessment or reach a conclusion without evidence. Do you have evidence?

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

You are the one making claims to gods, you assume the burden of proof. I'm under no obligation to believe in your gods or anyone else's gods. I'm under no obligation to accept the existence of your gods, invisible pink Unicorns or other objects de Art because you claim they exist until proven not to exist. That's ridiculous.

Concluding that your gods don't exist, while it might hurt your feelings, is a perfectly rational and reasonable position in terms of belief in gods requiring belief in magical and supernatural forces.

No, I'm not and never have. That's just what you want to argue against.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief. Why is that wrong?

 

[PratchettFan]

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.


Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you.

But you were telling me that in the absence of evidence neutrality is correct. Neutrality implies equality. If you are neutral between two propositions then you are treating them as equally likely. As my absurd ghost of Nixon example was meant to demonstrate: this is not always true. These are hardly irrelevant issues.

I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

Yes and no. A belief that something does not exist (due to insufficient evidence or definition) is NOT the same as the belief that something does exist. Rejection of a claim is not the assertion of a new claim.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Because if it did exist, it could be defined.

In the absence of evidence, any conclusion is a belief - or faith if you prefer.

That is untrue. "I am wearinging shoes right now." You have no evidence one way or another. So either conclusion as to whether my proposition is true is based entirely on faith? No. Belief and faith are not interchangable. If you tell me that a 3 month old child is walking and talking and playing professional hockey, I will not believe you because everything is contrary to things already known. Now, sometimes a new discovery will contradict previous knowledge. In that case, initial rejection until evidence is presented is justified.

Therefore, a lack of belief has to be a neutral position, unless there is evidence to support a position.

Next to me is the ghost of Richard Nixon riding on flying unicorn. You have no evidence either way, so are you neutral as to whether or not that's true? Not all propositions are equally likely.

Not quite a valid example. I have evidence that shoes exists. I have evidence that humans post on this board. I have evidence that humans wear shoes. There are all kinds of evidence available to me about shoes and their uses. However, even with that I have no evidence as to what you are currently wearing so I am neutral on the subject. I don't know. But at least I know what the subject is.

Ok, that's a start. Now, you did not address the Richard Nixon example I also gave, but can you agree that there is a substantial difference between beiing neutral in the shoes example and the ghost of Nixon example? It is not reasonable to say one should be neutral in the second as the probabilities are not equal.

Now, what evidence do you have regarding god?

Which god?

What is god?

Not adeqeately defined (and by asking what god is, you're pre-supossiong the existence)

And if you tell me what god is, what evidence are you using to support that definition?

These are all questions I would ask of a theist. And since I have never received a convincing reply, I must reject the proposal that any gods exist.

Let's not get bogged down in irrelevant issues and do not assume I am telling you anything more than I am telling you. I am not arguing there is a god. I have no idea if there is and frankly don't care if there is. The issue here is not whether there is a god, but whether Atheism is a belief.

I asked what is god and you say it is not adequately defined. That is pretty much my point. If you can't define it, then how do you conclude its non-existence is more likely than its existence?

Here's an audacious idea: the nonexistence of something defines its nonexistence.

So it doesn't exist because you say so. That is the evidence you want to go on?

 

[Papageorgio]

Look at all the examples today of atheists on this board who degraded those that believe in God. Then they play victim when people don't like them.

Atheists and their belief system is not relevant to me.

Atheists branding themselves as victims, is funny.

It appears to me that you are the one playing the victim card.

I'm not a victim, you have a whole article that pins the victim, believe what you want.

I think it's amusing.

Actually, you are the whining, crying victim.

You go with sparky, but you must admit the article by the OP is a big whine, of course if you are an atheist, you won't see it.

 

[amrchaos]

I guess the best way to address this to note several different types of Atheist "religions" there are

1)Secular Humanism(a bit too idealistic, actually)
2)Buddhism(certain sects are atheistic)
3)Confucianism(no need to believe in a god)
4)Taoism(Talks about a deity--the deity itself is insignificant and not praised!)
5)Objectivism(some atheist consider them hedonistic cold hearted bastards!)
6)Atheistic Statism( Atheist version of Silver-tongued oppressive Devils!!)

There are more, but this is enough

they do not share the same belief system(commonality--the lack of belief in a God, then they diverge)

In general, there is no need for a god to begin with to define members of most of these groups. I guess you are confusing "Western Agnostic Atheist" with all Atheist. Some of these atheist in the list never heard of the Judaic god or its counterpart

So no, not all atheist are defined by a rejection of a particular god or gods.


Atheism, itself, is a category, not a religion

 

[Tuatara]

The issue at hand is the claim that Atheists lack belief.

You lack belief also or do you believe in every god ever descibed, and millions of other supernatual phenomenoms decribed by others eg: fairies, unicorns, leprachauns...etc

Saying one lacks belief does not make it so.

Does not make what so? That they have a lack of belief. Yes it does make it so. That the subject does not exist? Of course not, but that is up to the believer to provide the evidence. You have a right to believe anything you want but don't you dare say something exists without any evidence.

Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. Do you disagree with that statement and, if so, why?

No, but what does this have to do with my argument. You ignored it completely. You were the one demanding evidence for a non-belief.

 

[Hollie]

Evidence is the responsibility of one making the positive assertion. What evidence do you have for magic and supernaturalism that defines assertions of your gods?

I reach conclusions (make decisions) every day about "things", ie: events and circumstances that have no connection to religious belief. Those conclusions are based upon rational assessments of gain/loss, probable outcome, anticipated results, etc.

You're hoping to impose your religion on others and using fallacious reasoning to do so.

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

You are the one making claims to gods, you assume the burden of proof. I'm under no obligation to believe in your gods or anyone else's gods. I'm under no obligation to accept the existence of your gods, invisible pink Unicorns or other objects de Art because you claim they exist until proven not to exist. That's ridiculous.

Concluding that your gods don't exist, while it might hurt your feelings, is a perfectly rational and reasonable position in terms of belief in gods requiring belief in magical and supernatural forces.

No, I'm not and never have. That's just what you want to argue against.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief. Why is that wrong?

It's been explained to you repeatedly why it's wrong. Your religion of "its true until disproven" is pointless.

You have made no defendable case for any of the gods or any other fantastical, magical, supernatural entity. I conclude your supernatural intentions don't exist until such time as you can make a defendable case for your inventions.

So thrill us. Make a reasoned, rational case for your gods. Additionally, make your best case for Invisible Pink Unicorns. If you can't disprove them, they are just as likely to exist as not, right?

How much time do you spend on an average day pondering Invisible Pink Unicorns?

 

[Tuatara]

Look at all the examples today of atheists on this board who degraded those that believe in God. Then they play victim when people don't like them.

Atheists and their belief system is not relevant to me.

Atheists branding themselves as victims, is funny.

Where I'm from atheists are not victims or portrayed themselves as one but if the crap that happens in America happened here damn right I would fight against it. These people in this video are the most ignorants twats out there and if you sit on the fence while these clowns spew this kind of hate and filth I deem you no better.

 

[chikenwing]

The only reason atheists were at the top of the list in the US was because the God-botherers put them there. Because we all know the Jesus Freaks are the only ones with empathy, a moral compass yadda, yadda, yadda. Us heathens can't possible know right from wrong without some fantasy-driven omnipotent being showing us the way....

Remember that vile fantasy of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson where he preached about raping and torturing children and and adults, that his belief stops him from doing that while allowing atheists to do the worst. That same disgusting fundie monster preached that children should be forced to marry adult men.

No none remembers that because its not true ,you were corrected the last time you posted this crap,and its still crap.
Who taught you to lie like you do?

 

[PratchettFan]

The issue at hand is the claim that Atheists lack belief.

You lack belief also or do you believe in every god ever descibed, and millions of other supernatual phenomenoms decribed by others eg: fairies, unicorns, leprachauns...etc

Saying one lacks belief does not make it so.

Does not make what so? That they have a lack of belief. Yes it does make it so. That the subject does not exist? Of course not, but that is up to the believer to provide the evidence. You have a right to believe anything you want but don't you dare say something exists without any evidence.

Any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. Do you disagree with that statement and, if so, why?

No, but what does this have to do with my argument. You ignored it completely. You were the one demanding evidence for a non-belief.

It has everything to do with my argument. You were responding to my argument. If you wish to make your own that is fine, but let's not mix them up as if they are the same argument.

I assume you are an Atheist. Do you hold no opinion on the existence of god? IOW, do you see it as equally likely that there is a god as there isn't? If not, upon what do you base that conclusion?

 

[PratchettFan]

So you don't have evidence.

I do. Can you prove I don't?

See how that works? I'm just using your standards, (such as they are), to make a point that you're not presenting an argument at all.

You having no evidence of the magical, supernatural entities that you claim I'm supposed to refute is silly and pointless. It's reasonable and rational to conclude that you have no evidence of supernatural entities and that it is a reasonable and rational conclusion that I do not need to live in trembling fear of your gawds.

No, I can't. But I would love to se it. Care to share?

I have no evidence of anything. I am making no claim other than that. My position is based upon a single proposition. So tell me why you disagree.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief.

You are the one making claims to gods, you assume the burden of proof. I'm under no obligation to believe in your gods or anyone else's gods. I'm under no obligation to accept the existence of your gods, invisible pink Unicorns or other objects de Art because you claim they exist until proven not to exist. That's ridiculous.

Concluding that your gods don't exist, while it might hurt your feelings, is a perfectly rational and reasonable position in terms of belief in gods requiring belief in magical and supernatural forces.

No, I'm not and never have. That's just what you want to argue against.

Any conclusion made in the absence of evidence is a belief. Why is that wrong?

It's been explained to you repeatedly why it's wrong. Your religion of "its true until disproven" is pointless.

You have made no defendable case for any of the gods or any other fantastical, magical, supernatural entity. I conclude your supernatural intentions don't exist until such time as you can make a defendable case for your inventions.

So thrill us. Make a reasoned, rational case for your gods. Additionally, make your best case for Invisible Pink Unicorns. If you can't disprove them, they are just as likely to exist as not, right?

How much time do you spend on an average day pondering Invisible Pink Unicorns?

Ok. One more time to see if it sticks this time. I am not making a case for the existence of any god. I don't know if there is a god and could not care less about the question. If you all want to argue about the existence of god, have at. The subject does not interest me. This is about the nature of belief, which is entirely human.