Is Atheism A Belief?

JulesKorngold

"Lack of belief" atheism is called negative or weak atheism.

The belief that no gods exist is called positive or strong atheism.

just_sayin

Swolliw said:

Some theists, usually out of desperation or through arrogant posturing try to push the argument that atheism is a belief. Of course, most four-year-old children can see through the twisted logic of deliberately confusing the word "belief" (in its generic sense) with "religious belief".

Atheism is purely and simply not having religious belief and is a neutral position in relation to religion. Unlike theism, there are no degrees of atheism although there may be different motivations for being an atheist ranging from ignorant hatred of religion through indifference to informed choice.

So what are the traits, "three Rs" that distinguish an informed, thinking atheist?

Reality: Atheists will normally accept what is known to exist rather than a contrived, wishful version.

Reason: This is the innate ability to evaluate a situation without being clouded by biased thought.

Responsibility: Atheists have the responsibility to advance civilisation and the human species in a positive way rather than solipsistic, hateful view of theists that everything we do for science, medicine, learning history, geology is fruitless in the light of the world ending.

It is always good to define terms so we all know are speaking the same terminology.  Meriam Webster defines 'atheist' as



So, even the very word, atheist, denotes a statement of belief - that the person does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.  This differs from an agnostic who as the word itself denotes - a (meaning 'negate' or 'not'),  gnostic ('knowledge' or 'knowing'), does not know if a god exists.

So a tenet of faith for the atheist is that there is no god.  I say 'faith' because it can not be definitively proven there is no God.  Do atheist share any other common tenets of 'faith'?  Yes.  I can think of at least 4 others:

1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

So, unless an atheist can show they believe in a God who created the universe, created life, does miracles, and is an ultimate lawgiver while at the same time denying God exists, then we have established that they not only make faith claims, but that there are multiple tenets of their faith.

Is it reasonable to believe in chemical evolution as most all atheists believe ultimately must explain the presence of life in the universe?  Any event that has odds greater than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is considered so improbable that it is said to be essentially zero chance of happening and called a 'miracle' level event.  There are at least 10 miracle level problems in the steps from amino acids and nucleotides to functioning DNA.  

The probability of abiogenesis, or the process of life arising from non-living matter, is estimated to be very low: 

 

• Chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases: One in two to the 300,000 power, or about one in 10 to the 90,000 power 
   
• Probability of getting one DNA molecule right: One in 10 to the 89,900 power, or essentially zero 

So unless the atheist can explain how 10 miracle level events happened to allow chemical evolution to occur, then it is not rational to hold such a belief.  The complexity of DNA looks like code - quite literally it is a chemical language.  The only place where we definitely know code arises is when there is an intelligence behind it.  If you believe in something that needs 10 miracles to happen then you need a God.

If someone told a child that there was a 1 in 10 to the 90,000th power chance that they were going to go to Disney World tomorrow, and the child understood the odds, the child would know they aren't going to Disney World.  Yet, in faith, rather than logic or reason, the atheist bitterly clings to the notion of chemical evolution.  

If we look at the other issues in forming a single celled life form - from a functioning membrane, a motor to allow protons in and out for an energy source, etc. the odds then get ridiculously big.



Further, big bang cosmology, which most atheists believe, says that at the big bang, space, time and matter come into being from nothing (no space).  Unless the atheist can explain how you fit an entire universe in zero space, this seems like an illogical belief.  Its not that there aren't theories that do this, there are (brane theories, quantum flu cation theories, multiversal theories, inflationary theories, and at least 20 more), its that none of them pass basic math and logic tests.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he starts with a hat, the atheist doesn't even have a hat, but claims the universe came from nothing.  

This requires an incredible amount of faith.  And I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

MayCaesar

I have the responsibility to advance something by nature of not taking old fairy tales seriously? How about I advance my fist towards your face, friend?

And yes, my stance on god is a belief: I believe that it is just another scam targeting gullible people. The clergy has historically been the wealthiest class of people, and even today the richest country in the world is a theocracy in the middle of Europe. Oh, but they are so good at telling everyone about the virtue of being humble and living a simple life... Just look at these humble monks!

Factfinder

@just_sayin

So, even the very word, atheist, denotes a statement of belief - that the person does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.  This differs from an agnostic who as the word itself denotes - a (meaning 'negate' or 'not'),  gnostic ('knowledge' or 'knowing'), does not know if a god exists.

So a tenet of faith for the atheist is that there is no god.  I say 'faith' because it can not be definitively proven there is no God.  Do atheist share any other common tenets of 'faith'?  Yes.  I can think of at least 4 others:

1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

It does not denote a religious blind faith. Any honest debater would not have to be told that fact repeatedly.

A "tenet" of faith actually is in terms of reality non belief in all imagined gods to date. So for the sake of argument it is commonly accepted among atheists that god doesn't exist that we know of.

1) Or we simply make no assumptions and remain grounded in logic and fact. What's unknown is unknown and what's known came from natural sources only to date. It's okay not knowing.
2) See # 1.
3) I'm atheist and I believe life arising as it has is a miracle, one of many splendors in the natural universe. I told you this before so you lie on purpose to reinforce your faith internally. Thus lead people away from your faith.
4) ALL morals to date have roots in human conception. So yes it is a matter of subjective human consensus. You get your morals from primitive bronze aged goat herders who imagined a sadistic, loathsome blood thirsty, narcissistic elf god and attributed a set of morals to it to justify torture and genocides in its name. You have no evidence for what you call "objective morals". You're just afraid to question the fairytales out of fear of a fictious hell. Yes you told me you're not afraid of it for yourself, as long as you believe that is.

 So, unless an atheist can show they believe in a God who created the universe, created life, does miracles, and is an ultimate lawgiver while at the same time denying God exists, then we have established that they not only make faith claims, but that there are multiple tenets of their faith.

That's nonsensical and contradictory enough to put in the bible. There is faith based on reality like believing a chair will hold you when you sit, and there is looney religious faith like believing in women coming from ribs. (even only one) Again you exalt a repeated lie demonstrating the unlikelihood you truly believe, just can't admit it to yourself yet. We know this cause I've personally relayed this reality based fact to you numerous times. You know faith, say in the scientific method doesn't even resemble unquestioning faith in a fairytale elf god. Yet you desperately repeat the lie hoping it magically becomes true, why?

So unless the atheist can explain how 10 miracle level events happened to allow chemical evolution to occur, then it is not rational to hold such a belief.

So unless theists can show how a god can exist, and exist eternally, and how it solved all the problems of origins including the math, the science and the mechanics and methodology and 10 miracle level events with verifiable evidence, then it's not rational to hold such a belief. Asserting it's not confined to time/space realities will need evidence as well. The real kind. What facts we do know were discovered exclusively in nature and none in any other realm. Go...

just_sayin

@Factfinder

Tenets of Atheistic Faith:
1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

1) Or we simply make no assumptions and remain grounded in logic and fact. What's unknown is unknown and what's known came from natural sources only to date. It's okay not knowing.

If you believe that the creation of the universe was not the result of a God, then you agree with the first tenet.  Do you believe that the creation of the universe was the result of a God?  Do you know any atheist that believes the creation of the universe was the result of a God?  OK.  Point proven let's move on to point 2.  

2) See # 1.

If you believe that life was not created by a God, then you agree with the second tenet of atheistic faith.  Do you believe that life was created by God?  Do you know any atheist who claims that life was created by God?  OK.  Point 2 proven.  Let's move on to point 3.

3) I'm atheist and I believe life arising as it has is a miracle, one of many splendors in the natural universe. I told you this before so you lie on purpose to reinforce your faith internally. Thus lead people away from your faith.

By miracle in this instance, I don't mean just a remote chance of something, I mean something impossible to happen naturally, as is stated in the point above.  If you believe that things happen that nature can't replicate or can not happen in nature then you affirm miracles in the sense they are laid out in point 3.  Do you think that someone's amputated leg can grow back in an hour after it was amputated 2 years earlier as the evidence suggests?  If you reject the evidence because God is necessary, then you agree with tenet 3.  Point proven.  Moving on to point 4.

4) ALL morals to date have roots in human conception. So yes it is a matter of subjective human consensus. 

You already agree with point 4 of the tenets of atheistic faith.

So unless theists can show how a god can exist, and exist eternally, and how it solved all the problems of origins including the math, the science and the mechanics and methodology and 10 miracle level events with verifiable evidence, then it's not rational to hold such a belief. 

You are a little slow there Fact.  If space-time began to exist at the big bang, as big bang cosmology says it did, then the cause of the universe is outside of space and time, and is therefore timeless (eternal).  If God is behind the creation of the universe then because He is outside of space-time, no one is able to say how God did it, we can't perceive or see beyond space-time. 

You seriously think that something that is not naturally possible like chemical evolution can be explained naturally?  If it could be explained naturally, then you would have found it on the internet and posted it already.  If intelligence is needed, then tell me what intelligence is there that exists outside the confines of time and space, that has the power to make universes, is eternal, spaceless and immaterial, and has the intelligence to create finely tuned universes and make complex life?  Go ahead May, it isn't a trick question, but deduced from the evidence.  Whose the answer to he question?

21CenturyIconoclast

@Swolliw @just_sayin


Just_Lying_COWARD_Liar,

While I am waiting for you to not embarrass yourself any further as a totally dumbfounded pseudo-christian bible fool in front of the membership and Jesus (Hebrews 4:13), to you addressing my said post herewith without running away again from the main topic: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/190863/#Comment_190863  I have to inform the membership that you as a Christian, have to believe biblically, that the earth from its initial "void" (Genesis 1:2) to what it represents today, IS ONLY APPROXIMATELY 6000 YEARS OLD!  ROFLOL!!!

The above biblical axiom that you have to believe in is enough to make you the outright FOOL in the 21st Century for anyone else to continue in discussion with you!  GET IT BIBLE DUNCE?  Priceless!


CHRISTIANITY, THE PRIMITIVE THINKING BRONZE AND IRON AGE FAITH THAT KEEPS ON GIVING AND GIVING COMEDY TO THE ATHEISTS AT THE CHRISTIANS EXPENSE!  LOL!











.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder

Tenets of Atheistic Faith:
1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

1) Or we simply make no assumptions and remain grounded in logic and fact. What's unknown is unknown and what's known came from natural sources only to date. It's okay not knowing.

  

2) See # 1.

If you believe that life was not created by a God, then you agree with the second tenet of atheistic faith.  Do you believe that life was created by God?  Do you know any atheist who claims that life was created by God?  OK.  Point 2 proven.  Let's move on to point 3.

3) I'm atheist and I believe life arising as it has is a miracle, one of many splendors in the natural universe. I told you this before so you lie on purpose to reinforce your faith internally. Thus lead people away from your faith.

  If you believe that things happen that nature can't replicate or can not happen in nature then you affirm miracles in the sense they are laid out in point 3.  Do you think that someone's amputated leg can grow back in an hour after it was amputated 2 years earlier as the evidence suggests?  If you reject the evidence because God is necessary, then you agree with tenet 3.  Point proven.  Moving on to point 4.

4) ALL morals to date have roots in human conception. So yes it is a matter of subjective human consensus. 



So unless theists can show how a god can exist, and exist eternally, and how it solved all the problems of origins including the math, the science and the mechanics and methodology and 10 miracle level events with verifiable evidence, then it's not rational to hold such a belief. 

You are a little slow there Fact.  If space-time began to exist at the big bang, as big bang cosmology says it did, then the cause of the universe is outside of space and time, and is therefore timeless (eternal). of the universe then because He is outside of space-time, no one is able to say how God did it, we can't perceive or see beyond space-time. 

 If it could be explained naturally, then you would have found it on the internet and posted it already.  If intelligence is needed, then tell me what intelligence is there that exists outside the confines of time and space, that has the power to make universes, is eternal, spaceless and immaterial, and has the intelligence to create finely tuned universes and make complex life?  Go ahead May, it isn't a trick question, but deduced from the evidence.  Whose the answer to he question?

So you're sticking with stupidity and repeating lies in the hopes they may come true?

If you believe that the creation of the universe was not the result of a God, then you agree with the first tenet.  Do you believe that the creation of the universe was the result of a God?  Do you know any atheist that believes the creation of the universe was the result of a God?  OK.  Point proven let's move on to point 2.

On what authority do you make such absurd assertions? I do not know but the fact remains all evidence remains in the natural. So I lean that way without the unmovable conviction of idiotic religious beliefs. Geez. Why is that a problem for you to understand simple logic? You've proven nothing. I tell what I believe and you purposely couch it into your foolish beliefs. 

You already agree with point 4 of the tenets of atheistic faith.

You fall in the same category on point #4. Just too ignorant to know it. Unless you finally have at least a miniscule amount of possible evidence in some long shot fashion? No? No evidence of your imaginary friend?

You seriously think that something that is not naturally possible like chemical evolution can be explained naturally? 

On what authority do you make that foolish claim? You've demonstrated ignorance in evidence and what it means, and nothing that suggest such your absolute statement is accurate. What credentials do you have that you arrogantly declare what's impossible? You're uneducated in the field but the majority of scholars are researching, investigating and experimenting with chemical evolution because they, the experts don't know but want to know if it's possible. So what makes you think you know, your zealotry? 

If your fairy myth elf god existed you do not represent it well. 

 If God is behind the creation... 

And if Lucky is behind creation...LOL

By miracle in this instance, I don't mean just a remote chance of something, I mean something impossible to happen naturally, as is stated in the point above.

Fail. You don't know what's possible and what's not. Why all the scientific activity and investigating going on if all the people conducting scientific study could have just asked you if chemical evolution is possible and moved on? Oh, that'd be because you've the attitude of excessive pride and complacency in your ability to misrepresent and ague against strawmen you put up and they would laugh at you. 

Try again and this time stick to reality...

So unless theists can show how a god can exist, and exist eternally, and how it solved all the problems of origins including the math, the science and the mechanics and methodology and 10 miracle level events with verifiable evidence, then it's not rational to hold such a belief. Asserting it's not confined to time/space realities will need evidence as well. The real kind. What facts we do know were discovered exclusively in nature and none in any other realm. Go...

Factfinder

@just_sayin

You know faith, say in the scientific method, it doesn't even resemble unquestioning faith in a fairytale elf god. Yet you desperately repeat the lie equating the two erroneously hoping it magically becomes true, why?

On the other hand, if Lucky is behind creation then lucky charms will be magically delicious.

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder


With our posts to "Just_Lying_COWARD_Lia*r" shown above have him "floundering" around like a fish out of water as he shows that it is getting harder and harder for him to defend his embarrassing primitive Christianity in the 21st Century of Science and reason!

Oh well, his embarrassment comes with the acceptance of actually following Christianity to begin with.  Sad indeed, but we are having fun at Just_Lying_COWARD_Lia*rs expense in once again showing how BIBLE STOOPID he remains to be!



.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Swolliw Atheism is a religion and its most prominent religious sects are secular humanism and evolution. 

Let’s be honest…Atheism is unadulterated S-T-U-P-I-D-T-Y!!!  Logically, how can anyone possessing sufficient cognitive acuity to feed them self, walk, talk, and discern the environment around them, the supernatural Universe and Earth that surrounds them, the complex genome that defines them, truly and honestly believe that these things manifest from a naturalistic origin? That is not only illogical but irrational and could also be defined as a mental illness or inability to discern reality. The Universe, the Earth, our complex genome, are irrefutably beacons of unfathomable design necessitating a divine and omnipotent Designer…there is no other plausible explanation.

It is NOT possible that anyone who can walk, talk, think, communicate, with efficiency and clarity truly believe that our World and our complex genome are the products of happen-chance…NO WAY!!!  If you profess yourself an atheist, you’re either a bold face , you’re existing in self-deception or you’re simply mentally ill and spiritually demonic at the core. You might reject Elohim, Jesus, as Creator of our World and our flesh, you might scoff at the Canon and its Creation Narrative, but to actually profess or believe that the World and our genome are the products of naturalism is insanity defined and I have absolutely ZERO respect for your arrogance and idiocy. You are offensive!

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Swolliw Atheism is a religion and its most prominent religious sects are secular humanism and evolution. 

Let’s be honest…Atheism is unadulterated S-T-U-P-I-D-T-Y!!!  Logically, how can anyone possessing sufficient cognitive acuity to feed them self, walk, talk, and discern the environment around them, the supernatural Universe and Earth that surrounds them, the complex genome that defines them, truly and honestly believe that these things manifest from a naturalistic origin? That is not only illogical but irrational and could also be defined as a mental illness or inability to discern reality. The Universe, the Earth, our complex genome, are irrefutably beacons of unfathomable design necessitating a divine and omnipotent Designer…there is no other plausible explanation.

It is NOT possible that anyone who can walk, talk, think, communicate, with efficiency and clarity truly believe that our World and our complex genome are the products of happen-chance…NO WAY!!!  If you profess yourself an atheist, you’re either a bold face , you’re existing in self-deception or you’re simply mentally ill and spiritually demonic at the core. You might reject Elohim, Jesus, as Creator of our World and our flesh, you might scoff at the Canon and its Creation Narrative, but to actually profess or believe that the World and our genome are the products of naturalism is insanity defined and I have absolutely ZERO respect for your arrogance and idiocy. You are offensive!

Let’s be honest…Theism is unadulterated S-T-U-P-I-D-T-Y!!!  Logically, how can anyone possessing sufficient cognitive acuity to feed them self, walk, talk, and discern the environment around them, the natural Universe and Earth that surrounds them, the complex genome that defines them, truly and honestly believe that these things manifest from an imaginary bronze aged fantasy? That is not only illogical but irrational and could also be defined as a mental illness or inability to discern reality. The Universe, the Earth, our complex genome, are irrefutably beacons of unfathomable natural phenomenon as all evidence indicates necessitating an ever changing and evolving universe and the recombing of genes via natural selection and speciation…there is no other plausible explanation. One could say a god did it but we aren't in first grade.

You're drooling, that's offensive. 

MayCaesar

Hi, I am May. My religion is lack of belief in god, my sport is not running, my favorite drink is an empty glass, and my wife is my right hand!

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; And you will die in your sin and die in Hell in your rejection of Jesus as Messiah.

just_sayin

@Factfinder
Cut the crap. You are being dishonest. Answer this question: Does God exist?  If you hem and haw and claim you don't know - you are not an 'atheist' but an agonistic.  if you claim there is a God, then I don't think you understand what an atheist is.  If you say there is no God, then logically you don't believe God was involved in the creation of the universe, nor the creation of life.  You don't believe that medically impossible things happen like amputated limbs growing back in an hour no matter how many eye witnesses and medical documentation you are shown.  I've not misunderstood you.  You are just lying, and the only person who believes you is you.

The following are 4 tenets of atheism:
1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
Cut the crap. You are being dishonest. Answer this question: Does God exist?  If you hem and haw and claim you don't know - you are not an 'atheist' but an agonistic.  if you claim there is a God, then I don't think you understand what an atheist is.  If you say there is no God, then logically you don't believe God was involved in the creation of the universe, nor the creation of life.  You don't believe that medically impossible things happen like amputated limbs growing back in an hour no matter how many eye witnesses and medical documentation you are shown.  I've not misunderstood you.  You are just lying, and the only person who believes you is you.

The following are 4 tenets of atheism:
1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

Which one do you mean? I don't believe any of the imagined ones to date exists and have told you that repeatedly. Why do you feel you must lie? 

Another lie. I debunked your 4 points and you're butt hurt. What makes you think you speak for anyone but your self? Cause other intelligent people with intellect don't believe your cult scam.

You don't believe the guys leg grew back either. You think it reanimated and dug itself out of a grave two years after burial and hopped 50 miles and REATTACHED itself, scars and all, within a 1 hour window when conveniently NO ONE SAW IT HAPPEN. All your "witnesses" led the gullible to a point of inference and interpretation, one of the oldest scams in the book and you fell for it. At the behest of a cultic theocracy who's prime motivation was to torture, kill, and drive out nonbelievers while seizing their wealth and exalt Catholicism as the one true cult. The inquisitions and you fell for it hook line and sinker.

So yeah just_lyin, cut the crap. Did I mention you fell for one of the oldest scams in the book? LOL

just_sayin

@Factfinder
 I debunked your 4 points and you're butt hurt.

Uh, no, you did not.  The four points were:

The following are 4 tenets of atheism:
1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

You have not shown me:
1) Atheists who believe God created the universe
2) Atheists who believe God created life
3) Atheists who believe in miracles that need a God and are not scientifically and medically possible.

You did admit to point 4.

You don't believe the guys leg grew back either.

No.  I do believe it, because of the extensive eye witnesses, cross examination, medical records and testimony.  You won't believe it because you don't believe in God and it violates tenet 3 of your faith (see above).

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
 I debunked your 4 points and you're butt hurt.

Uh, no, you did not.  The four points were:

The following are 4 tenets of atheism:
1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

You have not shown me:
1) Atheists who believe God created the universe
2) Atheists who believe God created life
3) Atheists who believe in miracles that need a God and are not scientifically and medically possible.

You did admit to point 4.

You don't believe the guys leg grew back either.

No.  I do believe it, because of the extensive eye witnesses, cross examination, medical records and testimony.  You won't believe it because you don't believe in God and it violates tenet 3 of your faith (see above).

This is what I said that debunks your circular logic 4 points... 

1) Or we simply make no assumptions and remain grounded in logic and fact. What's unknown is unknown and what's known came from natural sources only to date. It's okay not knowing.
2) See # 1.
3) I'm atheist and I believe life arising as it has is a miracle, one of many splendors in the natural universe. I told you this before so you lie on purpose to reinforce your faith internally. Thus lead people away from your faith.
4) ALL morals to date have roots in human conception. So yes it is a matter of subjective human consensus. You get your morals from primitive bronze aged goat herders who imagined a sadistic, loathsome blood thirsty, narcissistic elf god and attributed a set of morals to it to justify torture and genocides in its name. You have no evidence for what you call "objective morals". You're just afraid to question the fairytales out of fear of a fictious hell. Yes you told me you're not afraid of it for yourself, as long as you believe that is.

Anyone one with a brain should have concluded using critical thought and objective thinking that your points were meaningless pontifications and what I believe as an atheist is based on known facts where as what you believe as a theists is purely religious conviction whether any, or some, or no facts, you're believing in the myth to the end. To greater emphasize the fact of your unbalanced thinking I need go no further than to point out your err in your next falsehood...

You quoted me as saying the following..."You don't believe the guys leg grew back either." And said you do believe it. But this is what I said in full...You don't believe the guys leg grew back either. You think it reanimated and dug itself out of a grave two years after burial and hopped 50 miles and REATTACHED itself, scars and all, within a 1 hour window when conveniently NO ONE SAW IT HAPPEN. All your "witnesses" led the gullible to a point of inference and interpretation, one of the oldest scams in the book and you fell for it. At the behest of a cultic theocracy who's prime motivation was to torture, kill, and drive out nonbelievers while seizing their wealth and exalt Catholicism as the one true cult. The inquisitions and you fell for it hook line and sinker."

Either way you have not produced one eyewitness who claims to have watched the miracle unfold. Only inferences drawn from a mock court in the dark ages where the agenda was to lift the church while persecuting all others as heretics to enrich the church and the theocracy. And you fell for it because doubting means hell for you. You claim it doesn't matter to you where your faith is concerned yet you defend the fake miracle (as I demonstrate rationally it is extremely likely a fraud) with such veracity, and no physical evidence, and no eye witness to the actual event. Not to mention you lied again because you don't believe it grew back, you believe it reanimated, traveled and secretly attached itself within a hours window of time so no one can see the miracle unfold. So don't be a deceiver. You have no evidence of any of that.

And that my friend is the difference between religious conviction and what I believe as an atheist. They are not the same as you stubbornly insist because to admit doubt or possible other explanations would mean you would have to question if your god did this miracle. (and don't be coy, that is why you believe this miracle and not cause Zeus granted it) On the other hand I seriously doubt any of the imagined gods did this or any other miracle such as life but if I find I'm wrong than so be it. I've nothing invested in being right, only finding truth. Where you must be right and can't objectively look at things like this because your belief system is different than mine, it's a religious conviction. Do I need to repeat it again or will you finally understand the two are entirely different?

melody

@just_sayin Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, according to the definition you gave. Let's look at the points you had.

1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

Points one, two, and three are not always true, you can not believe in a god and still believe in supernatural things. I do not, but there are people who do. Also, isn't a naturalistic solution to all of these things the natural explanation without a belief in anything supernatural? I guess it depends on your definition of belief whether or not the most logical conclusion counts as a belief, like I can't be 100% sure, but I can't be 100% sure anything around me is real, yet I don't say it's my belief that there are doors in my house. The most logical conclusion is usually stated as fact, I think. This applies to point four too.

just_sayin

melody said:

@just_sayin Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, according to the definition you gave. Let's look at the points you had.

1) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of the universe must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
2) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore believe that the origin of life must ultimately have a naturalistic explanation.
3) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they therefore do not believe in miracles that can not be scientifically or medically explained.  
4) Since atheists do not believe in a god, they do not believe in an ultimate lawgiver, therefore they do not have an objective source of morality.  This doesn't mean that they don't have morals, but that the 'source' of their morality is subjective and based either in popular group opinion, or based on what an individual thinks.  

Points one, two, and three are not always true, you can not believe in a god and still believe in supernatural things. I do not, but there are people who do. Also, isn't a naturalistic solution to all of these things the natural explanation without a belief in anything supernatural? I guess it depends on your definition of belief whether or not the most logical conclusion counts as a belief, like I can't be 100% sure, but I can't be 100% sure anything around me is real, yet I don't say it's my belief that there are doors in my house. The most logical conclusion is usually stated as fact, I think. This applies to point four too.

Welcome. I agree with you that we can't say with 100% certainty about anything.  I guess it is theoretically possible that we are all in a virtual reality world and we just aren't aware of it.  I don't understand what supernatural things, other than a god, could create a universe or create life from non-life.  Vampires?  Werewolves?  Unicorns?  Ghosts?  Leprechauns? And who exactly believes this?

Barnardot

@just_sayin @melody ;Welcome. I agree with you that we can't say with 100% certainty about anything.

Well I can say 100% that anyone who actually believes there is a God is 100% deluded and that using "the you can't prove 100%" excuse went out of fashion years ago. 

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin @melody ;Welcome. I agree with you that we can't say with 100% certainty about anything.

Well I can say 100% that anyone who actually believes there is a God is 100% deluded and that using "the you can't prove 100%" excuse went out of fashion years ago. 

I don't know how many scientists believe that we are in a simulation, but there are indeed some:

Do We Live in a Simulation: Chances are About 50-50

A Scientist Says He Has the Evidence That We Live in a Simulation

Confirmed We Live in a Simulation

Bernie, I would argue that it is reasonable to believe there is a good:
1) The universe had a beginning, where there was nothing there before.  Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.  The universe began to exist so it has a cause - God.  Nothing could not create the universe because nothing has no properties or attributes with which to create anything.
2) The fine tuning of the universe - there are many calculations involving the fundamental forces of the universe that show it is finely tuned for life, when there is nothing requiring those parameters to have those values.  

"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". - Stephen Hawking

1. The strength of gravity: If gravity was slightly stronger, stars would burn out too quickly. If slightly weaker, stars would not form at all. The strength of gravity is fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^40.
2. The cosmological constant: This governs the expansion rate of the universe. If it was slightly larger, the universe would have expanded too fast for galaxies to form. If slightly smaller, the universe would have collapsed back on itself. It's fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^120.
3. The ratio of electrons to protons: If this ratio was slightly different, atoms and molecules could not form. It's fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^37.
4. The strong nuclear force: If slightly weaker, only hydrogen would exist. If slightly stronger, hydrogen would be rare. It's fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^16.
5. Initial entropy of the universe: The initial low entropy state of the universe at the Big Bang was incredibly unlikely and fine-tuned to about 1 part in 10^(10^123).
6. Carbon resonance: The energy levels of carbon are fine-tuned to allow it to be produced in stars and form the basis for life.
7. Electromagnetic force: If slightly stronger or weaker, chemical bonds could not form and complex molecules would be impossible.

That is just 7 instances (I've seen some lists as high as over 400 specifically identified parameters necessary for life).

3) The complexity of DNA code is like code.  Code needs a coder.  Chemical evolutionists acknowledge that there are at least 10 miracle level problems (meaning having odds for it are less than 1 in 10 to the 50th power) with chemical evolution.  If you need 10 miracles for chemical evolution, then you need a God.  Here are but a few problems:

1. Forming a primordial soup: There is a lack of clear explanation for how a "primordial soup" of organic molecules could have arisen on the early Earth's hostile environment. No specific probability is given for this.
2. Generating complex biomolecules: The formation of complex biomolecules like proteins and DNA from simpler molecules faces significant chemical and thermodynamic barriers. For example:
   • Forming proteins with only left-handed (L) amino acids has an estimated probability of 10^-14,184.
   • Even small entropy decreases needed to form complex molecules have a probability of only 10^-19.
3. Chirality and homochirality: Explaining the emergence of homochirality (all L-amino acids and D-sugars in life) is a major challenge. No specific probability is provided, but it's considered highly improbable to occur by chance.
4. Polymerization: Forming long polymers like proteins and nucleic acids in an aqueous environment is thermodynamically unfavorable. Water tends to break down large biomolecules rather than build them up.
5. Nucleotide formation: Synthesizing nucleotides and assembling them into RNA or DNA under prebiotic conditions is extremely challenging. No specific probability is given.
6. Generating genetic information: There is no clear explanation for how the information required for life could be generated by random chemical reactions.
7. Forming self-replicating systems: Explaining the origin of self-replicating molecular systems remains an unsolved problem.
8. Cellular complexity: There are no detailed explanations for how unguided processes could produce the integrated complexity of cellular systems.

The complexity of even a single celled organism suggests an intelligence behind it.

4) Miracles suggest that there is a God.  There are lots of documented miracles.  There are miracles attested to by doctors, with accompanying medical documentation (such as Barbara Comiskey).  There are miracles of paralyzed people walking on video (Delia Knox), there are even court certified miracles with interrogation of witnesses, numerous eyewitness testimonies, medical records, doctors attestation for an amputated leg growing back in one night 2 years after being amputated (miracle of Calanda).  I would add the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, and the evidence of his miracles to this list also.   

There are many more arguments for God's existence: consciousness, answered prayer, fulfilled prophecies, etc. 

For some atheists, their atheism is like a faith to them, and no amount of evidence will shake their faith. 

Hitcounter

it has to be a belief if atheism wasn't a belief what would there be to defend? 

how can so many defend atheism yet refuse to acknowledge their belief in it?, if this was a non belief an atheist would still require the belief that their non believing position is the correct position, correct enough to actively defend it and in doing so show their belief in their position or in other word

show their belief in atheism as a credible position 

 

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

Is atheism a belief or a lack of belief?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

Hitcounter

@Joeseph to consider yourself an atheist you first have to believe you are an atheist

Atheism is a concept not a physical thing, for a concept to continue to exist requires people to affirm their belief in it. If for example there was nobody to affirm and defend the belief in the concept of atheism the concept itself would not exist in reality. Continued affirmation in the belief that atheism is the correct position is what keeps the position alive and therefore existent.

you may well say atheism is not a belief, this is difficult to defend when the defender also has to believe they themselves are atheist in order to defend the position.

I would say I am correct when I affirm that atheism is a belief and many people believe in the position of atheism, atheism is not a physical or tangible thing it requires belief to exist as a concept at all.

would you say you don't (believe) in atheism?

if so what is it you are defending?      

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

Atheism as a concept to work  only requires me to accept it and it works.

What you're basically saying is not collecting stamps is a hobby.

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@Hitcounter

Is atheism a belief or a lack of belief?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

Atheism isn't saying 'I'm unsure if there is a god or not."  That would be 'agnostic'.  Atheism makes the declaration that there is no God.  That is a belief statement.  The very word 'atheist' means 'no god'.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; @Hitcounter ; @Factfinder ; @JulesKorngold ; @21CenturyIconoclast ; @Barnardot ; @Fredsnephew ;

Atheism is a "belief" in naturalism...atheism is a religious tenet of Secular Humanism which is Darwinian Evolution. Atheism and Evolution are a "religion" of Naturalism which is rooted in the demonic and is the door to Hell in Eternity. Atheism belongs to Satan as does the Atheist, the Religionist, the Humanist.

Hitcounter

@Joeseph "(For) Atheism as a concept to work only requires me to accept it and it works" 

when you accept atheism what are you doing? you are choosing to accept the belief that atheism is the correct position over say an organised religion. Sure its a  A Dispositional belief but a belief none the less.

I had not mentioned hobbies, hobbies and beliefs are two entirely different topics.

Joeseph

@just_sayin

Atheism

disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Hitcounter

@just_sayin your point to the difference between atheism and agnosticism is I believe a perfect understanding of the atheist position 

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

It's actually a misunderstanding of the atheist position 

Hitcounter

the character known as Just_Saying and myself seem to have settled this argument once and for all, by merit of its Name and the defence associated with its position  Atheism is a Belief System.

as all opponents have now been adequately defeated this Debate can now be closed

well played evrybody!  

Hitcounter

@Joeseph your position has been adequately defeated, unless you have a further defence of it I would suggest rising the white flag and taking this one on the chin, living to fight another day  

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

Ah another ignorant theist troll who just got thrashed and is now sulking ,all you're proving  is the fact your an uneducated tool who just got owned......Next.....

Hitcounter

@Joeseph "Ah another ignorant theist troll who just got thrashed and is now sulking ,all you're proving  is the fact your an uneducated tool who just got owned......Next....."

isn't this (double speak)?

It was confirmed that Agnostic is the correct descriptor when describing yourself as having no beliefs, it was further noted that atheism by nature of the word itself means (no-God). it was then stated that atheism is a belief in no God and that agnostic is correct when describing those with no beliefs.

religion was briefly mentioned as an opposite to atheism but religion was not discussed in relation to the subject, you as the self described atheist where first to bring up religion in a religious context which is aligned with your atheist belief system.

simply put you only seem to be able to think in a religious tint yet claim that you do not believe, if you where to truly not believe you would be an agnostic rather than an atheist as we have established.

your argument was defeated outright, if you have anything of substance you can add to rekindle your argument please do I am all ears as they say      

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

The arguments you're making are childish in the extreme but unfortunately typical of the sort made by uneducated religious trolls like you.

You really ought to think before you type in future ,you never had an argument don't  worry if you ever do I will let you know ....

Here you are put very simply just for you , I just bet the penny still won't drop ....

ZING 

just_sayin

@Joeseph
What is the source of your claim.  I noticed there was no link.  The dictionary definition of atheist is:



It seems that you might be pulling your 'definition' out of a very dark hole. 

Hitcounter

@Joeseph Ah I see you have resorted to personal insult otherwise known as a tell tale sign of defeat

you have uploaded some form of diagram explaining differences in (types of atheism) yet I fail to see how this as any impact on the argument at hand, we are not arguing the differences between variants of atheism we are arguing as to weather atheism can be considered a belief system

If anything the adding of additional variants and interpretations of atheism that seem to conflict and contradict each other only adds to the strength of the argument that atheism is a belief rather than an objective statement of fact.

Your argument has brought atheism closer to the concept of religion in that it mimics arguments made by the religious regarding (correct interpretations of the belief system)

I am happy to continue the debate however I must stress you seem to only be adding to your own defeat with each new comment, it may be better to cut your losses at this stage.

Joeseph

@just_sayin


Actually you pulled your definition from the toilet paper that is known as Miriam Websters the Christians go to favourite  reference source....

My definition comes from Americanatheistsorg ....so maybe sue them?

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

Ah I see you fine my accurate description of you and your childish behaviour insulting , that's tough and a usual tactic used by cry baby losers like you ......

Here you go again I know the penny still won't drop ..... get an adult to help if you wish....

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Clearly, theistic influence taints these definitions. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Hitcounter

@Joeseph what you have offered here is an interpretation of atheism, this position then assumes that atheism as a concept is (open to interpretation) if so as you have affirmed then I have a question?

are you able to provide hard evidence beyond just assumption and belief that you are in-fact an atheist? 

Also I am not insulted by your attempts as personal insult as I feel I have the upper hand in this argument, you on the other hand appear to be on the back foot and scrambling to justify your weakened positions and the assumptions you are basing these positions on. 

you are an object I am indifferent too. 

Factfinder

Doesn't matter what nutters think of atheism. The rejection of fairytale elf gods is due to lack of evidence, period. This unbelief doesn't in anyway resemble religious conviction asserting a positive with no ability to back it up and no evidence at all. "The bible says" isn't a debate form to be respected in intelligent debate.

That means there has only been evidence of natural phenomenon to date so there is no reason to consider the supernatural. Every time in the past when religion asserted some "reality" science has come along and provided a correct answer when the answer was discoverable. Christians thought the world was "hung" in place but science discovered astrophysics and explained the truth. Religion thought the sun revolved around the earth but science discovered the truth. Religion thought god threw lightening bolts out of anger until science discovered the facts of weather phenomenon. Now religion is invoking the same false logic on tougher questions in the present like the origin of life and the universe and trying to redefine atheism so as to pretend it's a baseless assertion like religion when it's the exact opposite. Atheists consider the knowledge where as theism defends an asserted belief and uses special pleading in place of rational argumentation in futile efforts to reconcile scientific facts with sacred elf book fantasies. Just to be able to say something like "Zeus did it". 

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Joeseph
What is the source of your claim.  I noticed there was no link.  The dictionary definition of atheist is:



It seems that you might be pulling your 'definition' out of a very dark hole. 

Geez Just_lyin all you have to do is right click on the image to know that "very dark hole" was wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism  And it's definition is more explanatory than the one you chose; although it doesn't really matter cause atheism doesn't assert a positive belief with no facts or evidence, only theism does that with conviction.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; @Hitcounter ; @Joeseph ; @JustSayin @21CenturyIconoclast ; Factfinder and Joeseph are butt-hurt religionists who never knew Jesus as Lord and they never possessed the indwelling Holy Spirit who is the Guarantor of New Covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father (John 3:5; Ephesians 1:13-14) and if anyone follows these two Judas' to Hell, it will be your own fault and you will be "without excuse." 

There is NOTHING more lame or stu-pid than the religion of "atheism" which is not logical, reasonable, empirical, rational, intelligent...the atheist is the fool belonging to Satan (John 8:44) and they will suffer unconscionably in Hell subsequent adjudication and prior to total annihilation in the Lake of Fire. Do not go the way of the wicked i.e., the atheist! Trust in Jesus as Messiah who died for you to provide you an eternal Path to the Father and a beautiful and joyful life in Time and in Eternity in the New Jerusalem (John 3).

 

Hitcounter

@Factfinder Atheism in requiring you to (believe) you are an atheist undermines the atheist argument that religion is an unevidenced fairy-tale.

Consider this: For most religions hard contextual and archaeological evidence exists that is suggestive that at least in some cases some parts of the story religions describe are contextually true. While this is not a cover all form of evidence it is certainly a form of evidence.

now if we take this scant evidence for Gods existence and compare it to evidence against Gods existence we find that there is no direct evidence against Gods existence.

if a scale where weighing the two sets of evidences on the religious side would be a few grains of sand claiming to be a holy grail however on the Atheist side would be nothing as their has been no direct attempt to disprove the existence of God by atheists and so it can be assumed there is no evidence as no attempt has been made to gather any.

       

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@Factfinder ; @Hitcounter ; @Joeseph ; @JustSayin @21CenturyIconoclast ; Factfinder and Joeseph are butt-hurt religionists who never knew Jesus as Lord and they never possessed the indwelling Holy Spirit who is the Guarantor of New Covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father (John 3:5; Ephesians 1:13-14) and if anyone follows these two Judas' to Hell, it will be your own fault and you will be "without excuse." 

There is NOTHING more lame or stu-pid than the religion of "atheism" which is not logical, reasonable, empirical, rational, intelligent...the atheist is the fool belonging to Satan (John 8:44) and they will suffer unconscionably in Hell subsequent adjudication and prior to total annihilation in the Lake of Fire. Do not go the way of the wicked i.e., the atheist! Trust in Jesus as Messiah who died for you to provide you an eternal Path to the Father and a beautiful and joyful life in Time and in Eternity in the New Jerusalem (John 3).

  

There you go dreaming about mens butts again. 

Meantime time you feel so stoopid for believing in fairy tales with no evidence. And atheist know the bible and prove you wrong when you have no proof of your mindless babbling. 

The difference between us and you ricky is our wives never wondered what it would be like to have a real man instead of a slow, scared child afraid of the dark and a fairy elf god hell. 

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder Factfinder and Joeseph are butt-hurt religionists who never knew Jesus as Lord and they never possessed the indwelling Holy Spirit who is the Guarantor of New Covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father (John 3:5; Ephesians 1:13-14) and if anyone follows these two Judas' to Hell, it will be your own fault and you will be "without excuse." 

There is NOTHING more lame or stu-pid than the religion of "atheism" which is not logical, reasonable, empirical, rational, intelligent...the atheist is the fool belonging to Satan (John 8:44) and they will suffer unconscionably in Hell subsequent adjudication and prior to total annihilation in the Lake of Fire. Do not go the way of the wicked i.e., the atheist! Trust in Jesus as Messiah who died for you to provide you an eternal Path to the Father and a beautiful and joyful life in Time and in Eternity in the New Jerusalem (John 3).

Joeseph

@Hitcounter

No , what I have given you is the accepted definitions regarding Atheism , I did tell you that you were ignorant of these and you proved it by using world weary ancient  arguments trotted out by troll Christians.

Why would I have to provide hard evidence to a christian troll like you?

Regards insults you are new here I would have accorded you the normal courtesies until a point of mine left you making the childish response of "argument over we win " you want to act the big guy you're going to get it back.

You are an object I'm indifferent too.

Factfinder

Hitcounter said:

@Factfinder Atheism in requiring you to (believe) you are an atheist undermines the atheist argument that religion is an unevidenced fairy-tale.

Consider this: For most religions hard contextual and archaeological evidence exists that is suggestive that at least in some cases some parts of the story religions describe are contextually true. While this is not a cover all form of evidence it is certainly a form of evidence.

now if we take this scant evidence for Gods existence and compare it to evidence against Gods existence we find that there is no direct evidence against Gods existence.

if a scale where weighing the two sets of evidences on the religious side would be a few grains of sand claiming to be a holy grail however on the Atheist side would be nothing as their has been no direct attempt to disprove the existence of God by atheists and so it can be assumed there is no evidence as no attempt has been made to gather any.

       

Indoctrinated opinions are not "scant evidence of god" that was just silly. The evidence you bring up proves the religions existed, not the subjects of their worship. 

Hitcounter

@Joeseph believe it or not I typed out a complete response however this sites editing tools appears to be exceptionally dysfunctional and during an attempt to edit a spelling correction it has deleted my response, I refuse to repeat the effort required to deliver the response again as the tools of the site appeared to lack the functionality to guarantee these efforts will not also be in vein.

before Joeseph makes the expected claim that i am in some way signalling defeat has anybody else encountered difficulty with the sites editing tool? it is also notable to me that a lot of the sites functions are unreasonably slow is this normal