"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[Bust Nak]

Because the questions don't go away and atheist can't explain their position accept by just not taking one. Many atheist stances are quite hypocritical.

Me: "Do you believe in intelligent design"
Atheist: "No. You must give proof and show me God creating something."
Me: "I can't, but then where did life come from."
Atheist: "Nothing."
Me: "Can you prove to me there is no God by showing me this 'life coming from nothing'?"
Atheist: "No. But that doesn't mean there's an intelligent designer."

So for some reason an atheist they demand proof in one case but not in the other. Why doesn't an atheist need proof of the first living thing coming from nothing but must have proof of intelligent coming from something intelligent?

There is nothing hypocritical about that because that's just how rational debate works, the side that makes fewer claims has fewer things to defend and it's always more work to build a case than to knock it down. It's not our fault our position is easy to defend. Don't want to do the hard work, then take up easy position. If you don't want to do any work, then take no position.

I would love a good answer to the hypocrisy of this thinking. Why are atheist who claim to use the scientific method picky about what they need proof?

Surely you've heard of the Russell's teapot analogy? If not then go check it out. If you know of it but don't think it is a good answer, ask us more questions based on it.

Do they not see that they are just like their religious counterparts when they think this way?

No, of course not, because the two ways are not actually alike.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 269 by Bust Nak]

Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of life coming for another living being. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life coming from nothing. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

So answer honestly: Which way would the scales tip?

[Bust Nak]

Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of life coming for another living being. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life coming from nothing. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

So answer honestly: Which way would the scales tip?

The side where life coming for another living being. The side with every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

Now let me ask you a similar question, Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of all life on Earth coming for a common ancestor. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life being created by a intelligent designer. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

Which way would the scales tip?

[2timothy316]

I would love a good answer to the hypocrisy of this thinking. Why are atheist who claim to use the scientific method picky about what they need proof?

Surely you've heard of the Russell's teapot analogy? If not then go check it out. If you know of it but don't think it is a good answer, ask us more questions based on it.

No, this is not an acceptable answer. The teapot analogy doesn't apply. I'm not asking you to prove there isn't a God. I'm asking you why you are picky when you ask for proof.

[Rufus21]

Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of life coming for another living being. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life coming from nothing. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

So answer honestly: Which way would the scales tip?

I think the answer to the question is not the answer that you want to hear. Let's look a little closer at that scale.

On one side we have life developing naturally from genetic material with no outside interference. We have undeniable proof of this happening since life began.

On the other side we have an invisible, unknown supernatural cause with no evidence.

I think we would both choose the same side but I don't think it supports your beliefs. I don't think you understand that creationism is on the "something from nothing" side.

[Bust Nak]

No, this is not an acceptable answer. The teapot analogy doesn't apply. I'm not asking you to prove there isn't a God. I'm asking you why you are picky in when you ask for proof.

I would contest otherwise, the analogy applies. A person readily accept there is no teapot in space, without seeing any proof of a lack of teapot; while demanding he be shown proof of teapot before he will alter his belief. Is he being picky with proofs?

[2timothy316]

Lets say there are scales. On one side of these scales is the evidence of life coming for another living being. On this side would be every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

On the other side is the evidence of life coming from nothing. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

So answer honestly: Which way would the scales tip?

The side where life coming for another living being. The side with every birth from every animal. Every cell that divides into two.

So why not go where the evidence leads? Why choose to follow the direction that the scales don't tip?

On the other side is the evidence of life being created by a intelligent designer. On this side there is nothing on the scales because it's never been observed.

BUZZZ: https://www.rdmag.com/article/2016/03/s ... -life-form

Sciences (Intelligent life) make synthetic life all the time. So the scales tip to intelligent life. Life coming from one ancestor has not been observed since that early cellar record is very poor.

[2timothy316]

No, this is not an acceptable answer. The teapot analogy doesn't apply. I'm not asking you to prove there isn't a God. I'm asking you why you are picky in when you ask for proof.

I would contest otherwise, the analogy applies. A person readily accept there is no teapot in space, without seeing any proof of a lack of teapot; while demanding he be shown proof of teapot before he will alter his belief. Is he being picky with proofs?

I'm asking why are you picky in what you accept as truth without proof. I wish you'd be honest with me.

[Bust Nak]

So why not go where the evidence leads? Why choose to follow the direction that the scales don't tip?

I am going where the evidence leads? I choose to follow the direction that the scales tipped. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution while there is none for intelligent designer.

BUZZZ: https://www.rdmag.com/article/2016/03/s ... -life-form

Sciences (Intelligent life) make synthetic life all the time. So the scales tip to intelligent life. Life coming from one ancestor has not been observed since that early cellar record is very poor.

Wait, you think us creating synthetic life supports the intelligence design side? No, it is actually evidence that life "came from nothing" you were looking for.

[Bust Nak]

I'm asking why are you picky in what you accept as truth without proof. I wish you'd be honest with me.

I am being honest with you: I am saying I am no more picky than they guy who believe there is no teacup in space. And if believing there is no teacup that count as being picky to you, then I honestly am proud of being picky. I am picky because anything less would be irrational.