Nope, I am not allowing you to weasel out. Previously you stated that god does not exist, and I am holding you to that statement. You can’t just waffle between two distinct positions.
Argument from Authority: LEARN YOUR FRIGGING FALLACIES!!!
No one in the forums has questioned or criticized your “non-belief.” Atheists do not believe in God or gods.
Your assertion that “God does not exist.” can not be proved. Every single time you say it you sound like a frigging idiot who understands nothing about reasoning or logic.
You got any more fallacies you want to try out?
Then why do you keep making a claim that you cannot evidence, and insist it’s right because there is no contrary evidence?
Edit: That was meant to be a question…
1 Like
This god which can not be proved, I would think by now they would have done something to make themselves obvious.
Or even maybe talking to us more directly to tell us who he or she really is.
If a heaven exists I will find that out at death.
If a heaven doesn’t exist, I lose nothing. It is kind of cool to discuss it, but it is very doubtful consciousness can exist outside the brain.
None of us actually have any proof, but we argue over (Not Able To Disprove A God or Deity exists.)
If evidence of a deity should surface fine, but I’ll continue to believe there’s nothing after death. Death is nothing. I believe we cease to exist. I have made peace with that.
NO. There’s no solid proof for my beliefs, nor is there proof for what many other people believe.
Some people are Christians even though there’s no proof of that.
So I guess in a way I can agree there really isn’t proof that a god doesn’t exist, but I want to be sure before I start worshiping some deity and then I would have questions for that deity.
-
Why keep us in the dark about who you are?
-
Why not slow down or stop weather disasters?
-
Do I still go to heaven even though I still don’t trust you?
If a god or deity suddenly made themselves obvious after this
much time I would have problems believing in it.
I was a Christian I was raised Christian but after research I couldn’t find anything solid to back up the Christian god.
There’s many religions to choose from, but I choose none.
So yeah I guess I can see your point.
I don’t think you do. An atheist holds just one of two positions, that they withhold belief in a god, or they claim a god does not exist. You hold either one of those two positions, and cannot just switch back and forth to suit your whims or defense.
And that is what you are still doing. One day, you claim a god does not exist, the next you take the soft atheist position.
Make your mind up, you are either a soft atheist, a hard atheist, or a theist (which I believe you still are).
But I am still not going to cut you any slack, I am holding you to your claim there is no god, and for fuck’s sake, support your position by providing evidence.
This thread is 244 posts in length, it has gone around and around in constant circles, I have had it with your nonsense. Make your mind up, provide proof there is no god, stop the bull shit nonsense.
1 Like
As I said, you are voicing an unevidenced belief, exactly as theists do.
No one is arguing that a deity exists, only that your claim is unevidenced and irrational.
But only you and theists are making a claim you cannot evidence.
Again I have to ask, do you care whether your reasoning is rational?
YES or NO?
Then why do you keep using the known common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, by claiming a deity does not exist because there is no evidence? That is by definition an irrational claim. You can’t claim to care that your reasoning is rational and simultaneously ignore your repeatedly deliberate and irrational use of a known logical fallacy.
1 Like
For statements like “there is no god”, “god does not exist”, etc., you have to look at the intention behind the statement and the context. If you want to provoke religious people with blasphemic statements or to make blasphemic statements with the intention of desensitizing, this is fine. However, if the context is a rational discussion about what is and is not, what can be and what cannot be, what is supported by empirical data and not, then it is not fine, and you end up having to prove the unprovable. So for the first context (blasphemy) I consider “there is no god” a perfectly sensible thing to say. But for the second context (rational evidence-based discussions), something like “god probably does not exist” or “current empirical evidence do not support the existence of a god” are about as far as you can go without having to prove unprovable stuff.
Edit: edited weird language
IMHO, of course.
Basically until I actually see hard evidence of a deity I stay an atheist.
I don’t mean to be irrational I just wont believe it until I have evidence.
This is FALLACIOUS. “I have never seen evidence so it does not exist.” FALLACY. Imagine what the world would be like if every Scientist thought the way you thought. Each time you open your mouth you commit one fallacious string of logic after the other.
Yes I made some unbiased claims, but unless I see some actual proof I stay very skeptical whether a god exists or not.
I can accept dying to nothing.
Actually, your claim was very biased. You claimed there was no deity. That’s a bias.
And many people on the site keep telling you this and you still make the same ignorant claims. “There are no Gods” is a claim that requires you to provide evidence for the claim. “I don’t believe in Gods, based on the lack of evidence” is reasonable until evidence manifests.
Are you saying that you still don’t understand the difference between not believing in any deity, and your CLAIM that no deity exists because there is no evidence?
Everyone.
I stand by my (Opinion) that there’s no god.
Is that better than trying to claim there’s just no god in a statement?
That is a claim. Support this claim by providing evidence.
Which is it? They’re mutually exclusive positions.
You also ignored my question.
Are you saying that you still don’t understand the difference between not believing in any deity, and your CLAIM that no deity exists because there is no evidence?
I said (Opinion) this time instead of making it a statement.
I am stating it’s an opinion, I don’t have evidence for an opinion.
They’re the same thing, you are and have been stating an unevidenced opinion, and claiming it is valid because there is no evidence to contradict it, and that is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
You also still haven’t answered my question?