"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.

[paarsurrey1]

no one PROVES something does NOT exist

Is it from science and or religion or just one's conjecture, please?
Anybody, please
Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 256 by paarsurrey1]

The answer is already in your post - we "believe in" atheism without any evidence/proof but cannot believe in One-True-God because atheism is a negative position, a position of doubt and uncertainty.

Side point, we don't believe in atheism, as there is nothing to believe in. There is no choice involved, we don't believe therefore we are atheists.

Please don't mind:
Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position ,please?

Regards

[Bust Nak]

Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position ,please?

in a word, yes. Which makes it one of the easiest position to defend.

[2timothy316]

Is Atheism such a meaningless and lifeless position/no-position ,please?

in a word, yes. Which makes it one of the easiest position to defend.

Atheist don't defend they are just masters of not answering.

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our bodys physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to transcend their animal nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like transgenderism.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all " either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

[Bust Nak]

Atheist don't defend they are just masters of not answering.

Lets see, shall we?

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

BUZZ, that's not for atheists to defend, that's up to moral subjectivists to defend. As for not answering, there is a huge thread going in the main C&A forum right now where I am answering questions.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our bodys physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

BUZZ, that's not for atheists to defend, that's up to compatibilists to defend. As for not answering, there is a thread right here debating this.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

BUZZ, that's not for atheists to defend, that's up to whoever is doing that to defend. Who on Earth are expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true?

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

BUZZ, that's not for atheists to defend, that's up to evolutionist to defend. As for not answering, there is a thread right here, that you have personally had your questions answered, some of them by yours truly.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

See above re: moral subjectivism.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

BUZZ, that's not for atheists to defend, that's up to environmentalists to defend. As for not answering, this is the first time I've see that point being raised. Do start a new thread. I do have some input for that.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to transcend their animal nature.

See above re: evolution.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like transgenderism.

BUZZ, that's not for atheists to defend, that's up to civil right activists to defend. As for not answering, there is a thread in the Religion and Sexuality sub forum where this is being debated.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all " either physically or intellectually.

See above re: civil right activists. I can't think of a thread where this is discussed, try asking in the religion and politics forum.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

See above re: civil right activists.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 263 by Bust Nak]

As I said. No defense, just masters of giving no answers. Thanks for proving my point. They are better at saying 'not my problem' then a congress saying the same to a new born baby needing healthcare.

[Rufus21]

As I said. No defense, just masters of giving no answers.

You are attributing beliefs to atheism that do not apply. Perhaps some atheists believe some of those things and others don't. They are attributes of other groups but not of atheists as a group. It would be like saying, "Theists believe that gay marriage is wrong." Some do and some don't. Theism itself does not take a position on the matter.

As far as not giving answers, 4 discussion threads were given above.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 264 by 2timothy316]

But we are fully justified in saying "not my problem" because it literally, is not my problem. Why would you expect someone to defend a position they do not hold?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 264 by 2timothy316]

But we are fully justified in saying "not my problem" because it literally, is not my problem. Why would you expect someone to defend a position they do not hold?

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 will 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? 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? Wouldn't a real scientist wait for a clear result before stamping something as true?

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

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 264 by 2timothy316]

But we are fully justified in saying "not my problem" because it literally, is not my problem. Why would you expect someone to defend a position they do not hold?

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 will 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? 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? Wouldn't a real scientist wait for a clear result before stamping something as true?

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

I liked one's post, it is very reasonable. Kindly allow me to publish it on my blog, please.
Regards