On why Atheism is a Shite BELIEF System

[Brian Peacock]

What are atheist certain about Seth?

[Seth]

What are atheist certain about Seth?

Dunno, but not the existence or non-existence of God.

Now, Atheists however are very certain of the non-existence of God.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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"...

Well, one can rationally say "I don't believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden, but I have no objective scientific evidence pointing either way" which is the long version of "I don't know.

So, when an atheist says the same thing about god, why do you start screaming about capital A atheists and calling us all fucking liars?

I've said exactly that in every conversation we've had on the subject since you joined here!

If you consistently said that, I wouldn't criticize, but no Atheist here actually says that consistently. You only qualify your disbelief by admitting it's a belief when I challenge your positively-asserted statements of the non-existence of God.

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief. In fact, I have never claimed disbelief except as a shorthand for "lack of belief". Your assertion here is nothing but a boldface lie.

What Atheists commonly say is "There is no objective scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God, therefore there is no God."

Which fucking atheists? I have never said that. Again with your deluded claim that all atheists are AtheistsTM. Just more of your usual bullshit. You really need another weapon in your arsenal - this one is only for hunting snarks.

There are several logical failures in that (synthesized) claim: First, it is not objectively true that there is no scientific evidence pointing towards the existence of God. At best there is no objective scientific evidence that you have knowledge and understanding of to that effect. Since you are not all-knowing, there may well be objective scientific evidence out there of which you (or all Atheists for that matter) may be unaware of.

This entire section is a strawman based on your bullshit about what "atheists commonly say" - I won't bother commenting further on it.

Second, You (or all Atheists) may reject objective evidence of the existence of God improperly simply because it does not meet your entirely subjective and arbitrary definition of "scientific."

I am not an "Atheist", I am simply atheist. Kindly do not include me in your fictitious definition!

Third, any conclusion that implies or infers that there is no God is inherently flawed because you do not actually know that, you are merely inferring it from the absence of evidence to the contrary. Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, such conclusions are therefore logically inconsistent.

Again, when have I ever attempted to present such evidence? Stop arguing with me as if I represent your fucking fantasy Atheist! I fucking do not and never fucking have!

Typically you Atheists will wiggle, evade and temporize all over the place when I present this analysis, the most common evasion being "I never said 'therefore there is no God'", but that's a pettifogging evasion because everything you write makes it perfectly clear that this is exactly what you believe, even if you have not said so in so many words. Such semantic sophistry is quite common among Atheists, who simply cannot bring themselves to say "I don't know" because doing so removes the dais from which they excoriate and insult theists and reveals their feet of clay.

I don't know. I have never claimed to know. I don't believe because to do so would be to claim to know - exactly what you say I should not do! I have never found a single, convincing reason to believe in any of the multitude of deities that the mind of man has dreamed up. I fucking tried to when I was younger and the victim of my upbringing. But these days, I'll sleep in on Sundays until such time as somebody can drop a real zinger of an argument on me and convince me to kneel in a draughty church. Trouble is, those fuckers don't know either. Yet they pretend to far more than any atheist (or even Atheist) ever has!

[Brian Peacock]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

Actually, Brian, I think it should be referred to as Strawmanning.

[jamest]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

[piscator]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

Surely you have an unstated criteria for what you expect to "experience" after you die? Will you count that as "evidence"?

[Seth]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief. In fact, I have never claimed disbelief except as a shorthand for "lack of belief". Your assertion here is nothing but a boldface lie.

Er, I was using the "group you" referring to Atheists in general, not you specifically. However, your "disbelief" is a belief in and of itself. As I've said many times, one cannot claim to be an "atheist" without having been exposed to theistic concepts and having made a conscious decision to label them as false or unconvincing and therefore forming the belief that theistic claims are false. That is not a "lack of belief."

Which fucking atheists? I have never said that. Again with your deluded claim that all atheists are AtheistsTM. Just more of your usual bullshit. You really need another weapon in your arsenal - this one is only for hunting snarks.

Any and all of them who self-profess to be atheists. See above.

This entire section is a strawman based on your bullshit about what "atheists commonly say" - I won't bother commenting further on it.

They do, and it's evasive to claim that they don't, and you know this perfectly well.

I am not an "Atheist", I am simply atheist. Kindly do not include me in your fictitious definition!

No, you are an Atheist. You do not have a "lack of belief" you have a firm belief.

Again, when have I ever attempted to present such evidence? Stop arguing with me as if I represent your fucking fantasy Atheist! I fucking do not and never fucking have!

Your participation here show it.

I don't know. I have never claimed to know. I don't believe because to do so would be to claim to know - exactly what you say I should not do! I have never found a single, convincing reason to believe in any of the multitude of deities that the mind of man has dreamed up. I fucking tried to when I was younger and the victim of my upbringing. But these days, I'll sleep in on Sundays until such time as somebody can drop a real zinger of an argument on me and convince me to kneel in a draughty church. Trouble is, those fuckers don't know either. Yet they pretend to far more than any atheist (or even Atheist) ever has!

[/quote]

In other words you, at the moment, have confidence in the proposition that you have never found a single convincing reason to believe that any of the multitude of deities claimed to exist by others actually exist. That's a belief because that confidence is not subject to immediate rigorous proof because you may have found a convincing reason but rejected it as convincing because of internal bias. And when one holds a belief, has "faith" (confidence) in such a proposition, and one follows it devotedly (as your participation here demonstrates) and it is a matter of ethics or conscience (as is perfectly obvious from your statement above), then you are practicing religion and are therefore an Atheist.

[jamest]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

Surely you have an unstated criteria for what you expect to "experience" after you die? Will you count that as "evidence"?

I have no idea what you're talking about, since I have no idea what will happen when the experience of being jamest is over. I'm not a Xian, btw.

Anyhow, this is just a red herring. The issue is atheism... and why it's a product of a belief system.

[Seth]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

No, I don't lump them together at all. There are only two types of small-a atheists: Persons, including children, who have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concepts whatsoever; and persons who are mentally incapable of processing thoughts about theistic concepts (implicit atheists).

Everyone else, meaning anyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and has given such concepts any consideration whatsoever and who has therefrom drawn any conclusion whatsoever, cannot be "atheist." They must either be a theist or an atheist. The distinction is subtle but important. Being "atheist" means "having no belief about theism" whereas being "an atheist" is a status, a position taken on the subject of whether or not theistic claims are valid. Whether one is an Atheist, meaning a member of the Atheist religion, depends on how the person reacts to the position taken. If one reacts to that position taken with fervor and evidences that the position is a matter of conscience or ethics to them, then they are by definition practicing religion and can be labeled as an Atheist.

Participation here is quite obviously evidence that the subject is a matter of conscience or ethics and regular participation here demonstrates a devotion to the principles of Atheism.

That being said, my arguments are also sauce for the gander, so to speak, as the vast majority of participants here have no issue whatever with lumping all theists together and soundly excoriating and criticizing them, which as I demonstrate is the pot calling the kettle black.

You Atheists can dish it out, but you can't take it, which is typical of intolerant bigots of every stripe, including bigoted theists.

[Seth]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

Surely you have an unstated criteria for what you expect to "experience" after you die? Will you count that as "evidence"?

Evasion. He's not denying that he has beliefs about what happens after he dies.

The point here is that Atheism is a belief system and it has no greater degree of credibility and no greater degree of scientific support than theism does.

In short, your Atheist belief system is no better and no worst than any other belief system, theistic or otherwise, so you should get down off your high horse and stop trying to pretend that you're somehow intellectually or morally superior to anyone else, because you're not. You're a religious believer just like the rest of the planet. Just accept that and admit that your arguments have no greater weight, reason or logic than anyone else's and quit demeaning and disparaging others for their different beliefs.

[jamest]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

No, I don't lump them together at all. There are only two types of small-a atheists: Persons, including children, who have never been exposed to any sort of theistic concepts whatsoever; and persons who are mentally incapable of processing thoughts about theistic concepts (implicit atheists).

Everyone else, meaning anyone who has been exposed to theistic concepts and has given such concepts any consideration whatsoever and who has therefrom drawn any conclusion whatsoever, cannot be "atheist." They must either be a theist or an atheist. The distinction is subtle but important. Being "atheist" means "having no belief about theism" whereas being "an atheist" is a status, a position taken on the subject of whether or not theistic claims are valid.

Spot on. I said the same thing on page 1:

Yet you can only fail to have a belief in deities for these reasons:

1) You're dead.
2) You're too stupid/ignorant to consider such beliefs.
3) You have a biased [scientific/empirical] criterion for [metaphysical] 'evidence' which subsequently prohibits the acceptance of the existence of a/any God.
4) You find logical fault(s) in the reasoning for any such Deity.

... Yet, [4] prohibits [3] from being the reason why you fail to have a/any belief in deities.

For me/us, this is simple and obvious. There are some smart atheists here, so I can only assume that the failure on their part to acknowledge that atheism is a belief system is a 'political' choice.

[piscator]

But you lump atheist in general and Atheists together and then employ your description of the latter to lambaste the general group. That's strawmanning, and you use the capital A to pass it off.

Should Asseverationist BUFFALO FUCKERS be limited to carrying placards a minimum of 500' from this forum?

[piscator]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

Surely you have an unstated criteria for what you expect to "experience" after you die? Will you count that as "evidence"?

I have no idea what you're talking about, since I have no idea what will happen when the experience of being jamest is over. I'm not a Xian, btw.

Anyhow, this is just a red herring. The issue is atheism... and why it's a product of a belief system.

You were the one carping on "Evidence", and how it can't be the substance of things unseen. Why change your point of sail now?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I have never admitted that my disbelief is a belief.

Surely you have to admit that your disbelief is a consequence of having an unstated criterion for what constitutes as 'evidence' for there being a God? Otherwise, there is no basis whatsoever (nor then any significance) for your disbelief. Once you acknowledge this, your disbelief in God is readily identified as a product of a belief system.

Quotemining much!?

I went on to say that I have never used the word disbelief except as a shorthand for "lack of belief"! You are AGAIN insisting that I actively disbelieve (or, put another way, believe in god's non-existence). As I told Seth, I simply don't fucking know. But, faced with nothing whatsoever that convinces me in the likelihood of any deity, I choose the null hypothesis until such time (if ever) that such convincement should occur. The alternative would be to believe in ALL deities and supernatural entities until I have proof of their non-existence - a nonsensical position!