Is it "an assertion that Atheism is correct"?

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't we see anyone trying to convince, or fight over, the existence of Santa Claus because everyone knows he does Not exist, so why do atheists try to convince, or fight over something they ' know ' is Not real.

No one is trying to force Santa into schools.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Atheist : a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.............Fact, no evidence for the existence of gods exists

Absence of evidence is Not evidence of absence.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No one is trying to force Santa into schools.

Seems to me there are those trying to force Santa 'out' of schools by getting rid of Christmas in schools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absence of evidence is Not evidence of absence.

That is poorly stated and incorrect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seems to me there are those trying to force Santa 'out' of schools by getting rid of Christmas in schools.

And there's your answer. Christmas never should have been in schools in the first place.

 

[RabbiO]

Why don't we see anyone trying to convince, or fight over, the existence of Santa Claus because everyone knows he does Not exist, so why do atheists try to convince, or fight over something they ' know ' is Not real.

Santa does not exist???

Hold on just a sec. If Santa doesn't exist, who owns the factory at the North Pole? Who do the elves work for? If that old woman is not married to Santa the what's her real name and who exactly is she married?

 

[Spiderman]

Looks like you are going to keep repeating yourself until you hear what you want, so let me spare you the effort: yes, we atheists--all billion of us in the world--assert that Atheism (TM) is correct. As a result of this denial of cosmic truth, we are going to be burned for all of eternity, and the devil and his demons will pour buffalo sauce on us and eat us in Hell forever and ever.

Now that you have exposed the truth about Atheism and Atheists, would you mind 1) finding a new target for meaningless, prejudiced questions, and 2) reading an article or two about the correct usage of proper nouns?

Regards.

Hahaha!! Gawd Damn! That was a good post!

Jesus truly loves you!

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, I don't agree with one here.
I believe in "G-d exists" very naturally, as I believe in my father and mother. G-d is Evident, and Evident does not need any evidence. If He had needed any evidence, then He would have not had the attribute of being Evident.

Atheism as the word depicts is pegged with Belief in G-d which presupposes that humans believed in the existence of G-d very naturally.
Right, please?

Regards

Uh, no. It just does not work that way.

Most of us atheists simply never believed in God, and many if not most do not find god-belief at all natural for anyone, either.

Atheism is by definition correct for atheits; it agrees with us. It expresses what we feel to be true.

To claim that it accurately represents reality - which is to say, to state that there are no deities in reality - is somewhat bolder a stance, and frankly no big deal, but it is still far more than simply being an atheist.

 

[Spiderman]

Am I the only one who finds this to be one of the most entertaining threads as of late... very clever, amusing, entertaining responses that the OP is completely oblivious to... quite intriguing methinks!

 

[paarsurrey]

Uh, no. It just does not work that way.

Most of us atheists simply never believed in God, and many if not most do not find god-belief at all natural for anyone, either.

Atheism is by definition correct for atheits; it agrees with us. It expresses what we feel to be true.

To claim that it accurately represents reality - which is to say, to state that there are no deities in reality - is somewhat bolder a stance, and frankly no big deal, but it is still far more than simply being an atheist.

It is OK with me.
It just does work that way with us believers.

We believers believe in God, and most of us if not all find god-belief at very natural for us and others also, but no compulsion for others:
Quran[18:30]
And say, ‘It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.’ Verily, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose flaming canopy shall enclose them. And if they cry for help, they will be helped with water like molten lead which will burn the faces. How dreadful the drink, and how evil is the Fire as a resting place!
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 18: Al-Kahf

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

You should make up your mind, @paarsurrey

 

[paarsurrey]

You should make up your mind, @paarsurrey

about what, please.
Regards

 

[Valjean]

I find atheism is a religion. A religion in that it adheres to the dogmatic view that there is No God.
Since that can Not be proven, it is the 'exercise of faith' in the non-existence of God.

Haven't you been paying attention? Ordinary 'atheism' is not a belief there is no God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Haven't you been paying attention? Ordinary 'atheism' is not a belief there is no God.

I do not think that some of the theists here can understand the difference between a lack of a belief in and believing non-existence.

 

[Valjean]

Why don't we see anyone trying to convince, or fight over, the existence of Santa Claus because everyone knows he does Not exist, so why do atheists try to convince, or fight over something they ' know ' is Not real.

What fantasy world have you been living in? Atheists proselytizing? Atheists fighting for converts?
You're mistaking atheists for theists, I think. It's the theists who preach, we atheists merely react.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, his English skills are a bit lacking.

Of course it is not an incorrect assertion to state that without evidence the correct belief is that of atheism.

Let's look at an example: Without evidence it is correct to not believe in leprechauns. "Aleprechaunism" is the correct belief. One does not believe in leprechauns without valid evidence.

The same without valid evidence of "non-existence of G-d" one must not believe in Atheism, please.
Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

The same without valid evidence of "non-existence of G-d" one must not believe in Atheism, please.
Regards

One does not "believe in Atheism". Atheism is not the belief of a "non existence of G-d". Atheism is a a lack of belief. That is why it is the null hypothesis.

Instead of using the word "God" or in your case "G-d" try substituting "Leprechauns" in the argument.

You will see that without any evidence for Leprechauns a lack of belief is where one starts.

 

[Valjean]

Seems to me there are those trying to force Santa 'out' of schools by getting rid of Christmas in schools.

Would you be happy celebrating Muslim, Hindu or Navajo holidays in school? Equal time seems only fair, to me.

I can just imagine the reaction if parents learned their children were bowing toward mecca and reciting Muslim prayers.

 

[paarsurrey]

One does not "believe in Atheism". Atheism is not the belief of a "non existence of G-d". Atheism is a a lack of belief. That is why it is the null hypothesis.

Instead of using the word "God" or in your case "G-d" try substituting "Leprechauns" in the argument.

You will see that without any evidence for Leprechauns a lack of belief is where one starts.

"One does not 'believe in Atheism' ".
It is not worth believing in Atheism as is not worth believing in "Leprechauns-ism". Is it correct to state that, please?

Regards

 

[Valjean]

The same without valid evidence of "non-existence of G-d" one must not believe in Atheism, please.
Regards

Paarsurrey, I can't believe you're really this obtuse. Atheism says nothing that one could believe in.
You don't need evidence of non existence. Non existence is assumed, its the epistemic default position. One assumes nothing until something is shown to exist.