10 Myths about atheists debunked

[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.

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?

Yes I was responding to your argument which you still have not responded a rebuttal against it. I claimed that you hold atheist views against all other gods except the one you believe in. Am I correct or do you believe in all of them also. The fact that you made no comment about it earlier can only mean you could not defend any position against what I stated. Your argument was an atheist cannot hold a position on the validity of something unless they have evidence. Now most would rightfully tell you the burden of proof (evidence) rests squarely on those who believe. I went one step further to show you that when you demand evidence for a position that does not believe it falls apart when I make the same claim towards you for anything you don't believe.

 

[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?

Yes I was responding to your argument which you still have not responded a rebuttal against it. I claimed that you hold atheist views against all other gods except the one you believe in. Am I correct or do you believe in all of them also. The fact that you made no comment about it earlier can only mean you could not defend any position against what I stated. Your argument was an atheist cannot hold a position on the validity of something unless they have evidence. Now most would rightfully tell you the burden of proof (evidence) rests squarely on those who believe. I went one step further to show you that when you demand evidence for a position that does not believe it falls apart when I make the same claim towards you for anything you don't believe.

No. My position is that Atheism is a belief. That is the only conclusion I am putting forth here and it is based upon the statement that any conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief.

You will get no argument from me that Theism isn't based upon belief. I am simply holding Atheists to the same standard. If your position is not based upon evidence, then it is based upon belief.

 

[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.

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.

I would know, I don't watch or listen or read either of their stuff and I won't bother wasting my time watching it now.

I was really worried how an internet troll like yourself would deem me.

one question, why do you guys watch them? I don't, I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Tuatara]

I assume you are an Atheist.

Yes I am.

Do you hold no opinion on the existence of god?

My opinion is god does not exist. Can I state this for absolute certainty? Of course not. I do not beleive God or any other god exists.

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?

Don't know what IOW means but I don't see that there is equally that there is likely a god as there isn't. I base that conclusion on so many things. Too many to respond here. One aspect would be the probability factor. When the same book that is telling me that a God exists also tells me of talking snakes and donkeys then I don't put much validity of anything this book tells me. There are so many more details and more reasons but it would take months and months of typing.

 

[PratchettFan]

I assume you are an Atheist.

Yes I am.

Do you hold no opinion on the existence of god?

My opinion is god does not exist. Can I state this for absolute certainty? Of course not. I do not beleive God or any other god exists.

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?

Don't know what IOW means but I don't see that there is equally that there is likely a god as there isn't. I base that conclusion on so many things. Too many to respond here. One aspect would be the probability factor. When the same book that is telling me that a God exists also tells me of talking snakes and donkeys then I don't put much validity of anything this book tells me. There are so many more details and more reasons but it would take months and months of typing.

IOW = in other words.

You don't have to go into them all. Give me just one piece of objective and relevant evidence that there is no god and I will concede to you. But it has to be objective and it has to actually relate to god - not just what someone else believes about god. Just one piece is all I am looking for.

 

[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.

I would know, I don't watch or listen or read either of their stuff and I won't bother wasting my time watching it now.

I was really worried how an internet troll like yourself would deem me.

one question, why do you guys watch them? I don't, I have better things to do with my time.

You mean like arguing on an internet forum. Also gotta love how you come to an atheist thread to piss on them while ignoring the hundreds of christian threads that claim to being victimized. And then you state that your some sort of neutral observer. I like that you claim to not watch, read or listen to. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Uncensored2008]

#1, Atheists are assclowns....

Oops......

 

[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.

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.

I would know, I don't watch or listen or read either of their stuff and I won't bother wasting my time watching it now.

I was really worried how an internet troll like yourself would deem me.

one question, why do you guys watch them? I don't, I have better things to do with my time.

You mean like arguing on an internet forum. Also gotta love how you come to an atheist thread to piss on them while ignoring the hundreds of christian threads that claim to being victimized. And then you state that your some sort of neutral observer. I like that you claim to not watch, read or listen to. Ignorance is bliss.

Arguing on this forum is pure entertainment for me.

As for watching so called experts is boring to me.

Where did I say I was a neutral observer? Please show me, or are you just blathering? Also why do you watch them?

 

[pinqy]

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.

Just because there are two options does not mean they are equally likely. And, again, not accepting a proposition as true is NOT the same as offering a counter proposition. If one makes a propostion with no evidence or support, one does not need any refuting evidence to not accept the proposition...it failed to support itself.

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.

You misunderstood my point. If you cannot define what something is, then on what basis are you claiming it exists? I am not saying nothing exists unless a human defines it (and I have no idea how anyone could reasonably read my comments as saying that), I am saying that you cannot say that something exists unless you can define it. How is anyone supposed to know if your claim is true or false if they don't even know what it is they are supposed to accept or deny?

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?

I disagree with that. If I were to claim (in all sincerity as far as you could tell) that a fairy told me an alien was in your bedroom 2 days ago and left no trace of its passage, would you claim the proper response was neutrality because there was no evidence it did not happen and that it was just as likely an alien visited you as not?

I really hope you wouldn't

 

[Tuatara]

I assume you are an Atheist.

Yes I am.

Do you hold no opinion on the existence of god?

My opinion is god does not exist. Can I state this for absolute certainty? Of course not. I do not beleive God or any other god exists.

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?

Don't know what IOW means but I don't see that there is equally that there is likely a god as there isn't. I base that conclusion on so many things. Too many to respond here. One aspect would be the probability factor. When the same book that is telling me that a God exists also tells me of talking snakes and donkeys then I don't put much validity of anything this book tells me. There are so many more details and more reasons but it would take months and months of typing.

IOW = in other words.

You don't have to go into them all. Give me just one piece of objective and relevant evidence that there is no god and I will concede to you. But it has to be objective and it has to actually relate to god - not just what someone else believes about god. Just one piece is all I am looking for.

First you ask me as to what I base my conclusion on why I'm atheist and now you ask for objective and relevant evidence as to why there is no god. Your defining aspect line of questioning is starting to snowball into something else. Like I said I can give you hundreds of resons beyond just lack of evidence why I don't believe there is a god but as for whether it is deemed as objective and relevant evidence is up to the reader.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First you ask me as to what I base my conclusion on why I'm atheist and now you ask for objective and relevant evidence as to why there is no god. Your defining aspect line of questioning is starting to snowball into something else. Like I said I can give you hundreds of resons beyond just lack of evidence why I don't believe there is a god but as for whether it is deemed as objective and relevant evidence is up to the reader.

There is no objective evidence that precludes the presence of a god or supernatural being.

There is no evidence that god or a combination of gods exists.

Therefore, Atheism is illogical and based on faith - that is it is a belief that is not founded in fact.

Likewise, theism is based on faith - belief that is not founded in fact.

The ONLY factual position is that we simply don't know, i.e. agnosticism.

I think that fanatical beliefs based on faith result in bad people, like Jim Jones, David Koresh, Guno, Delta4, et al.

 

[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.

I would know, I don't watch or listen or read either of their stuff and I won't bother wasting my time watching it now.

I was really worried how an internet troll like yourself would deem me.

one question, why do you guys watch them? I don't, I have better things to do with my time.

You mean like arguing on an internet forum. Also gotta love how you come to an atheist thread to piss on them while ignoring the hundreds of christian threads that claim to being victimized. And then you state that your some sort of neutral observer. I like that you claim to not watch, read or listen to. Ignorance is bliss.

Arguing on this forum is pure entertainment for me.

As for watching so called experts is boring to me.

Where did I say I was a neutral observer? Please show me, or are you just blathering? Also why do you watch them?

I guess you would be a hypocrite then. Much more threads where christians whine about being victims. The OP put uf some oberservation that have actually been stated by many relgious people. THe OP was defending his position by showing all the innacuracies. Instead of you actually debating any comments or any positions you came in here to whine about whining and professed your ignorance.. And you called me a troll.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Just because there are two options does not mean they are equally likely. And, again, not accepting a proposition as true is NOT the same as offering a counter proposition. If one makes a propostion with no evidence or support, one does not need any refuting evidence to not accept the proposition...it failed to support itself.

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.

You misunderstood my point. If you cannot define what something is, then on what basis are you claiming it exists? I am not saying nothing exists unless a human defines it (and I have no idea how anyone could reasonably read my comments as saying that), I am saying that you cannot say that something exists unless you can define it. How is anyone supposed to know if your claim is true or false if they don't even know what it is they are supposed to accept or deny?

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?

I disagree with that. If I were to claim (in all sincerity as far as you could tell) that a fairy told me an alien was in your bedroom 2 days ago and left no trace of its passage, would you claim the proper response was neutrality because there was no evidence it did not happen and that it was just as likely an alien visited you as not?

I really hope you wouldn't

The options are "either/or". Either it is evidenced based or belief based. You can certainly extrapolate from evidence, but you still need to start with evidence or it is just belief. Atheism is just belief.

I did not miss your point. If something cannot be defined then one has no basis to claim it exists or doesn't exist. Just because claiming it does exist is belief does not make claiming it doesn't any less belief.

I have no idea if an alien visited me or not. If so, it clearly did not desire any interaction, so I don't care. I am neutral on the subject. If I weren't, then my position would certainly be a belief, since I have no evidence one way or the other. However, I would point out that I don't consider this issue so important that I would actually come up with a word to describe my position on it. I don't call myself an Aalienist.

 

[PratchettFan]

I assume you are an Atheist.

Yes I am.

Do you hold no opinion on the existence of god?

My opinion is god does not exist. Can I state this for absolute certainty? Of course not. I do not beleive God or any other god exists.

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?

Don't know what IOW means but I don't see that there is equally that there is likely a god as there isn't. I base that conclusion on so many things. Too many to respond here. One aspect would be the probability factor. When the same book that is telling me that a God exists also tells me of talking snakes and donkeys then I don't put much validity of anything this book tells me. There are so many more details and more reasons but it would take months and months of typing.

IOW = in other words.

You don't have to go into them all. Give me just one piece of objective and relevant evidence that there is no god and I will concede to you. But it has to be objective and it has to actually relate to god - not just what someone else believes about god. Just one piece is all I am looking for.

First you ask me as to what I base my conclusion on why I'm atheist and now you ask for objective and relevant evidence as to why there is no god. Your defining aspect line of questioning is starting to snowball into something else. Like I said I can give you hundreds of resons beyond just lack of evidence why I don't believe there is a god but as for whether it is deemed as objective and relevant evidence is up to the reader.

So you don't have any evidence, just reasons. In other words, what you have is belief. And since my entire point is that Atheism is a belief, I would say that fits my position.

 

[pinqy]

The ONLY factual position is that we simply don't know, i.e. agnosticism.

So therefore if someone claims that s/he does know, then we can reject that proposition as being non-factual.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The ONLY factual position is that we simply don't know, i.e. agnosticism.

So therefore if someone claims that s/he does know, then we can reject that proposition as being non-factual.

We must accept the proposition as based on faith, not fact.

I've said for decades that I lack the faith needed to be an Atheist,

 

[pinqy]

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.

Just because there are two options does not mean they are equally likely. And, again, not accepting a proposition as true is NOT the same as offering a counter proposition. If one makes a propostion with no evidence or support, one does not need any refuting evidence to not accept the proposition...it failed to support itself.

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.

You misunderstood my point. If you cannot define what something is, then on what basis are you claiming it exists? I am not saying nothing exists unless a human defines it (and I have no idea how anyone could reasonably read my comments as saying that), I am saying that you cannot say that something exists unless you can define it. How is anyone supposed to know if your claim is true or false if they don't even know what it is they are supposed to accept or deny?

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?

I disagree with that. If I were to claim (in all sincerity as far as you could tell) that a fairy told me an alien was in your bedroom 2 days ago and left no trace of its passage, would you claim the proper response was neutrality because there was no evidence it did not happen and that it was just as likely an alien visited you as not?

I really hope you wouldn't

The options are "either/or". Either it is evidenced based or belief based. You can certainly extrapolate from evidence, but you still need to start with evidence or it is just belief. Atheism is just belief.

But belief is not the same as faith. And not believing A is not the same as believing something else. Not accepting A is not the same as accepting Not-A. (I hope I got that right).

I did not miss your point. If something cannot be defined then one has no basis to claim it exists or doesn't exist.

Actually, my point was that one does have a basis to say it does not exist.

Just because claiming it does exist is belief does not make claiming it doesn't any less belief.

But not all beliefs are equal, and belief is not the same as faith.

I have no idea if an alien visited me or not. .

Do you consider the two possibilities equally likely?

 

[Hollie]

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.

I just find it remarkable that you're arguing in support of a position you can't define, can't defend, and can't describe. As by default, your belief system is that any claim to the existence of an object or entity is equally viable and extant as not, I'm under no obligation to accept such irrationality. You actually are making the case for the existence of one or more gods as you are making the case for the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns. How many others share your religion of belief in the IPU? What evidence do you have that the IPU doesn't exist? None?

 

[pinqy]

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

Actually, it's not. You said you disagree with all but the #5 myth of the OP and that it was true: 'Atheism is just a faith like any other.

Then in post #11 you started to change that argument when you wrote "Atheism is a faith based belief system and, while negative, it is god-based."

By now you've stopped claiming it is faith or god-based are concentrating solely on belief...an argument no one has actually made. My arguments have been against atheism being faith and against all propositions having equal likelyhood of being true or false. Oh, and refuting that rejecting one proposition is the same as accepting its opposite.

 

[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.

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.

I would know, I don't watch or listen or read either of their stuff and I won't bother wasting my time watching it now.

I was really worried how an internet troll like yourself would deem me.

one question, why do you guys watch them? I don't, I have better things to do with my time.

You mean like arguing on an internet forum. Also gotta love how you come to an atheist thread to piss on them while ignoring the hundreds of christian threads that claim to being victimized. And then you state that your some sort of neutral observer. I like that you claim to not watch, read or listen to. Ignorance is bliss.

Arguing on this forum is pure entertainment for me.

As for watching so called experts is boring to me.

Where did I say I was a neutral observer? Please show me, or are you just blathering? Also why do you watch them?

I guess you would be a hypocrite then. Much more threads where christians whine about being victims. The OP put uf some oberservation that have actually been stated by many relgious people. THe OP was defending his position by showing all the innacuracies. Instead of you actually debating any comments or any positions you came in here to whine about whining and professed your ignorance.. And you called me a troll.

So you can't show me where you said I was a neutral observer, if I were a neutral observer you would be correct, however you are nothing but a liar.I read the OP, I found it to be whiny. I found it to be self serving and a unsubstantiated. Poor little atheists get picked on. That's all it does.

You never answer any of my questions however, trolls like yourself don't like to answer, you just like to troll. BTW, your spelling is terrible, I hope you don't do any writing at work, you will come off bad.