On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[piscator]

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

This FACT - given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Evidence=What you expect to get after you die.
That's the shortest and sharpest revelation of your circular reasoning I felt like typing while resting my brain from more important tasks.

[Brian Peacock]

You take care of that brain piscy. There's a squall coming in hard from the North...

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

This FACT - given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Nope.

There is no evidence that convinces me God exists. There's no evidence that convinces me that Vishnu exists. There's no evidence that convinces me that that-guy-with-the-head-of-a-bird-whatever-he's-called exists. I could go on all day but imagine there's a wobbly dissolve and an ascending harp glissando and cut straight to ...... Therefore I'm an atheists.

I don't have to meet your conditions to your satisfaction in order to validate my experience and how I live my life, just as you don't have to meet mine.

You don't get to define what I identify with or as just as I don't get to define what you identify with or as.

But that's bound to gets your goat so I'll just say that, one, writing FACT in uppercase doesn't make the sentence it's in any more factual, and two...

If God exists then he must have certain attributes such as being perfect, all-knowing, ever-present and unchanging.
Things with these properties are not observed.
Therefore, things with these properties probably don't exist.
Therefore, God probably doesn't exist.
Therefore, believing God exists and living your life according to that belief is at best a hedge and at worst a complete waste of time and stops you learning about real, actual stuff.
I don't gamble and I have better things to do with my time piss it up the wall championing God.
Therefore you can call me an atheist whether you like it or not.

[Seth]

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

This FACT - given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Dude, I've been telling them for two decades now that the only rational statement that can be made about the existence or non-existence of God is "I don't know."

And that's why I call them big-A Atheists, because it's a belief system that absolutely qualifies as "religion." And yes, it's shite.

[JimC]

So, Seth, I imagine you would say that the only rational statement that can be made about the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden is "I don't know"...

[surreptitious57]

I am an agnostic atheist which means that while I do not believe in God as such I can not prove that he does not exist. Although I prefer
to describe myself as an apatheist for that is a more accurate description of what I am. My non belief is such an insignificant part of my
world view that it does not matter all that much. I certainly do not define myself by it. My big thing is actually death so overcoming my
fear of it was and is more important to me than not believing in God. So if when I die I end up spending the rest of eternity in a state of
non consciousness then so what ? Given death is psychologically more satisfying in my case then I shall be going to a better place. Which
is ironically what keeps me balanced while still alive. If when I die I find God does exist then so be it as no point in denying it if it is true

[piscator]

I am an atheist which means that I do not believe in God.

[JimC]

I am an atheist which means that I do not believe in God.

Me too.

Seth and jamest would like that to translate into "I have an (arrogant) certainty that no god exists"

This, of course, is logically incorrect.

The absence of belief is not the same as a belief in the absence of a god, at least if we are defining belief as being absolutely certain of that assertion.

Mind you, I live my life and develop my view of the universe on the working assumption that there is no supernatural being. There is a resounding lack of credible evidence for the existence of such a being, credible meaning that the evidence would be repeatable, testable and available to a wide variety of observers.

[Brian Peacock]

So, Seth, I imagine you would say that the only rational statement that can be made about the existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden is "I don't know"...

O come all ye flatulent Jim. When God is special to 'them' it has to be special to 'us'. Don't you read the news for Pierrepont's sake?

[Svartalf]

I have a belief that XC exists. I'm not really certain, mind you, but it seems likely...

Actually, XC is a 12year old in Sarasota. FACT !

[Xamonas Chegwé]

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

This FACT - given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Dude, I've been telling them for two decades now that the only rational statement that can be made about the existence or non-existence of God is "I don't know."

And that's why I call them big-A Atheists, because it's a belief system that absolutely qualifies as "religion." And yes, it's shite.

I knew you'd turn up sooner or later, mate. With your inevitable "My definition of Atheism is the only correct one and the only one that matters" stuck record.

[pErvinalia]

One cannot say that "There is no evidence for God" without implicating oneself in having a biased criterion for what counts as metaphysical evidence (scientific/empirical evidence = metaphysical evidence).

This FACT - given that the aforementioned criterion is utterly unjustifiable via reason (in fact, it's utterly irrational to think that an observed/experienced world and a world itself are not distinct) - means that 'atheism' is no more a rational [metaphysical] perspective to hold than [say] being a Christian [or suchlike]. Which, in turn, means that being an atheist turns out to be yet another shite belief system.

That's the shortest and sharpest undermining of atheism you'll ever witness. You are now agnostics. If not, then there's something fundamentally wrong with your ability to reason.

Oh, sorry, were you being serious??

[pErvinalia]

To which I simply say:

"Show me the evidence"

Please read the OP again, Sir. It's the/your criterion for 'evidence' which unveils the truth about [your] atheism.

And your criteria for "evidence" unveils the truth about your made up shit.

[pErvinalia]

so please don't belittle yourself by stating that you JUST don't believe in God. Please analyse the reasons underpinning that BELIEF. You'll find that those reasons condense around the unjustified belief that empirical/scientific evidence = metaphysical evidence.

The reasons centre around the fact that there is no reason to believe in God, just as there is no reason to believe in ghosts.

And what the fuck is "metapysical evidence"?? It's about time one of you mystics explain what the fuck that is supposed to be.

When/if you understand this, you will have no choice other than to accept that agnosticism is the only sound foundation from which all fruitful metaphysical arguments must hence emerge.

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. More fail.

[pErvinalia]

Your inner feelings do not count as evidence.

I have never used my 'inner feelings' to argue about anything, since I understand completely that ANY argument stands or falls by reason alone.

No, if the argument is about the nature of the universe (into which category god fits), it stands or falls by a combination of correct reasoning and observational evidence which is repeatable, and available for scrutiny by all.

Given the aforementioned ontological distinction between 'observed X' and 'X itself', then it should be obvious that any argument about the fundamental nature of 'reality' has naff all to do with observation, JimC. In other words, science is out of its depth.

So we're back to feelings again??

[Brian Peacock]

Personally, I don't think this 'metaphysical evidence' is evidence of anything but itself. And it's not like the definition or idea of 'evidence' itself is ambiguous is it?