A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...

[PureX]

So when you disbelieve the claim that an undetectable dragon is living in my garage, then that is "meaningless gibberish"?



Is not believing that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage "dishonest idiocy passing itself off as reason"?



Like your disbelief that an undetectable dragon lives in my garage?

Believing that there is no dragon living in your garage is not "unbelief", nor "disbelief", So calling your belief "unbelief" or "disbelief" is both absurd and dishonest. And yet for many pages of this thread it's all you and other atheists do. Because you know you can't defend your own beliefs by the same criteria that you insist theists must defend theirs. It's petty, absurd, and dishonest.

 

[ratiocinator]

Believing that there is no dragon living in your garage is not "unbelief", nor "disbelief"...

Unless you can either prove there is no dragon, or are prepared to accept that there is, then not accepting it can only be disbelief. You don't believe it because you have no reason to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Believing that there is no dragon living in your garage is not "unbelief", nor "disbelief",

I didn't say "believing there is NO dragon".
I said "disbelieving that there IS a dragon".

Seems like you don't understand the difference.
That seems to be the very root of your confusion and mistake here.

You don't understand that saying "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X".

So calling your belief "unbelief" or "disbelief" is both absurd and dishonest.

What belief?
My atheism is a response to a claim. It's not a claim by itself.

Some guy says "god exists". I respond with "I don't believe you".
And as I just told you, that is not synonymous with "I believe the opposite".

The sooner you comprehend this, the sooner you'll realize how this entire thread is a case of a arguing a strawman.

And yet for many pages of this thread it's all you and other atheists do

Nope. Instead, for many pages we have been trying to explain to you that "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X".

But you seem unable to comprehend this.

Because you know you can't defend your own beliefs

I don't have beliefs concerning gods.
Theists are the ones with the beliefs.

Once more: the sooner you comprehend this, the sooner you'll realize that this entire thread is nothing but you arguing a strawman.

by the same criteria that you insist theists must defend theirs.

Well, they do. They are the ones making the god claims. So they are the ones with the burden of proof.
My disbelief of their claims is the logical, reasonable, rational and justifiable result of them failing to meet their burden of proof.

It is for the same reason that you do not believe that there is an undetectable dragon living in my garage.

It's petty, absurd, and dishonest.

The only dishonest thing here, is you doubling down on your strawman while just about everybody here - even including theists - has been trying to correct you on that.

But it's obviously in one ear and out the other.

Don't really know what else to tell you...............................................

If you don't get it now then either you simply lack the mental capacity to get it, or you are being willfully dishonest about this. I'll leave it in the middle which it is.

Either way, there doesn't seem much point in continuing this charade.
You keep telling us "this is what you believe" and we keep telling you that that isn't the case.

How you think you know better then we do ourselves what it is that we believe, is the epitome of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

So have fun drowning in this fallacious argument of yours. Not sure what it is that you are hoping to accomplish with this "strategy", but I can guarantee you that it won't be much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say "believing there is NO dragon".
I said "disbelieving that there IS a dragon".

Seems like you don't understand the difference.
That seems to be the very root of your confusion and mistake here.

You don't understand that saying "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X".



What belief?
My atheism is a response to a claim. It's not a claim by itself.

Some guy says "god exists". I respond with "I don't believe you".
And as I just told you, that is not synonymous with "I believe the opposite".

The sooner you comprehend this, the sooner you'll realize how this entire thread is a case of a arguing a strawman.



Nope. Instead, for many pages we have been trying to explain to you that "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X".

But you seem unable to comprehend this.




I don't have beliefs concerning gods.
Theists are the ones with the beliefs.

Once more: the sooner you comprehend this, the sooner you'll realize that this entire thread is nothing but you arguing a strawman.



Well, they do. They are the ones making the god claims. So they are the ones with the burden of proof.
My disbelief of their claims is the logical, reasonable, rational and justifiable result of them failing to meet their burden of proof.

It is for the same reason that you do not believe that there is an undetectable dragon living in my garage.



The only dishonest thing here, is you doubling down on your strawman while just about everybody here - even including theists - has been trying to correct you on that.

But it's obviously in one ear and out the other.

Don't really know what else to tell you...............................................

If you don't get it now then either you simply lack the mental capacity to get it, or you are being willfully dishonest about this. I'll leave it in the middle which it is.

Either way, there doesn't seem much point in continuing this charade.
You keep telling us "this is what you believe" and we keep telling you that that isn't the case.

How you think you know better then we do ourselves what it is that we believe, is the epitome of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

So have fun drowning in this fallacious argument of yours. Not sure what it is that you are hoping to accomplish with this "strategy", but I can guarantee you that it won't be much.

I got tired of debating with @PureX some time ago since he will not drop his strawman version of atheism.

 

[PureX]

Unless you can either prove there is no dragon, or are prepared to accept that there is, then not accepting it can only be disbelief. You don't believe it because you have no reason to.

No, you believe there is no dragon. That's the real truth of it. But since you know you can't prove there isn't one any more than the other guy can prove there is one, you would be a hypocrite to admit that you believe that there is no dragon, so you play games with words to try and hide your hypocrisy. If your position was really just undetermined skepticism, you'd just call yourself a skeptic. But you don't, because you're not.

And let's stop the stupid dragon analogy. That's just another attempt to play word games to deflect from the truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you believe there is no dragon.

No. Read my last post.

You really seem unable to wrap your head around the fact that
"I don't believe X"
is NOT the same as
"I believe the opposite of X".


Here's a very simple analogy:
I flip a coin and don't show the results.
I claim that it is heads and ask if you accept my claim as true (and thus believe the claim).
You say "no". You have insufficient information to commit to accepting it as true that it is heads.

Does that mean that you instead commit to accepting it as true that it is tails?

After all, it IS either heads or tails, right?
Is not accepting it as true that it is heads automatically mean that you'll accept it as true that it is tails?

(the answer, off course, is NO - because "i don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X")

That's the real truth of it

The only truth here, is that you are doubling down on a strawman.

But since you know you can't prove there isn't one any more than the other guy can prove there is one, you would be a hypocrite to admit that you believe that there is no dragon, so you play games with words to try and hide your hypocrisy.

It's not a play with words.
It's basic rational thinking.

A claim that has insufficient evidence, is not to be believed.
And the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Theists are the ones making god claims.
Atheists are merely people who aren't believing those claims because the burden of proof hasn't been met.

Theists are the ones trying to sell something.
Atheists are just people who aren't buying what theists are trying to sell.

The sooner you comprehend this, the better.

It's only been explained a few dozen times.

If your position was really just undetermined skepticism, you'd just call yourself a skeptic.

I am a skeptic.
And an atheist as a result of that.
"Skeptic" is not some "alternative" position to atheism.

A person is either a theist or an atheist. For whatever reason.
One either believes god claims or one doesn't.

It's a pretty binary position.

But you don't, because you're not.

False, as has been explained to you ad nauseum.

And let's stop the stupid dragon analogy

Any analogy that involves a positive claim which is unfalsifiable, will do.

That's just another attempt to play word games to deflect from the truth.

No. It's just another attempt to make you understand how you are arguing a strawman.

Something you clearly are unable or unwilling to acknowledge.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Believing that there is no dragon living in your garage is not "unbelief", nor "disbelief", So calling your belief "unbelief" or "disbelief" is both absurd and dishonest.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word absurd. What is more absurd ("wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate") than saying that not believing is not unbelief or disbelief? Can one be more wildly illogical than that?

you can't defend your own beliefs by the same criteria that you insist theists must defend theirs. It's petty, absurd, and dishonest.

Straw man squared. First, as an atheist, I don't have a belief to defend. The theist does if he hopes to be believed.

Second, you don't need to defend your beliefs, either, unless you want to be believed. I don't care what anybody else believes until it informs their actions in an undesirable way. If my neighbor finds that running in circles around a tree while baying under a full moon shaking a stick with a chicken claw nailed to it centers him and gives his life meaning, I don't mind, unless it is too loud. Only then are his beliefs of any interest to me. If he does the same thing indoors quietly, he's golden.

Atheist don't ask theists for anything. If you see the question, "Where's your evidence?," you should recognize that as a rhetorical question, a question not requiring an answer, because it is actually a statement - "You have no evidence, we both know it, and of the two of us, I'm the one who requires it before belief."

 

[ratiocinator]

No, you believe there is no dragon. That's the real truth of it. But since you know you can't prove there isn't one any more than the other guy can prove there is one, you would be a hypocrite to admit that you believe that there is no dragon, so you play games with words to try and hide your hypocrisy. If your position was really just undetermined skepticism, you'd just call yourself a skeptic. But you don't, because you're not.

Do you not see the hole you've dug yourself into? Either:

1. You believe there is no dragon, despite the fact that you can't possibly be 100% sure, so you are forming a positive belief based entirely on having no reason to believe the opposite. This is the position you have claimed atheists are taking and have criticised it for being illogical and indefensible.
   
   Or:
   
   
2. You just lack a belief that there is a dragon because you have been given no reason to take the claim seriously. This is the position that atheists have been saying they take and you have criticised for being absurd and dishonest.
   
   Or:
   
   
3. You remain genuinely undecided. The position you regard as 'agnostic'.

However, we can easily tell how much you are genuinely undecided if I tell you the dragon is going to fully materialise and kill you tomorrow morning. How worried would you be? Not at all, if you were at all rational, so, in fact, you don't believe it so your position must be either 1 or 2.

 

[ratiocinator]

Stop lying.

Stop running away. What's you're position regarding the dragon that will kill you tomorrow? Belief that it doesn't exist (just because nobody has provided evidence), lack of belief, or are you genuinely worried?

 

[wandering peacefully]

It is of importance to the believer, but of little importance otherwise. All "belief" really is, is the presumption that what we think is true, is true. And that really has no relevance to anyone but ourselves. But atheists have to keep the focus on belief so they can hide their "evidential" hypocrisy behind the facade of "unbelief". And why they must cling so ardently to it. Just read the posts on this thread. All they do is repeat over and over and over and over how the "disbelieve". No one cares what anyone "disbelieves" but them. And yet they can't assert what they really do believe (that no gods exist) because they know they can't defend it any more than the theist can defend the assertion that gods do exist.

I believe that dead people's consciousness's (specifically dead Native Americans that used to live here) can inhabit living wild animals and birds and will direct me to the location of their stone tools they lost on the ground or in and animal after killing it with the tool. I also believe that these same entities will leave their feathers as gifts to me to let me know they are here and care about me. It's the truth. It is real.

Do you believe me that what I believe about dead Indians actually happens and manifests in the actual physical direction to gifts?

If not, what would you call your lack of belief in my claims that this is reality? How would you explain to me why you don't believe my claims are true? (Even if you don't give one crap about what I believe). Just try explaining your reasoning why you don't believe my claims.

Would you just lack belief in my claims or would you go as far as saying absolutely no way is any of that reality? If not, why not? What would you call your refusal to go as far as to say no way is any of that true?

Btw, I no longer believe my beliefs were true and factual but I did for a few years and that belief comforted me. Guess what? I still find artifacts and feathers without the belief.

 

[PureX]

I believe that dead people's consciousness's (specifically dead Native Americans that used to live here) can inhabit living wild animals and birds and will direct me to the location of their stone tools they lost on the ground or in and animal after killing it with the tool. I also believe that these same entities will leave their feathers as gifts to me to let me know they are here and care about me. It's the truth. It is real.

Do you believe me that what I believe about dead Indians actually happens and manifests in the actual physical direction to gifts?

If not, what would you call your lack of belief in my claims that this is reality? How would you explain to me why you don't believe my claims are true? (Even if you don't give one crap about what I believe). Just try explaining your reasoning why you don't believe my claims.

Would you just lack belief in my claims or would you go as far as saying absolutely no way is any of that reality? If not, why not? What would you call your refusal to go as far as to say no way is any of that true?

Btw, I no longer believe my beliefs were true and factual but I did for a few years and that belief comforted me. Guess what? I still find artifacts and feathers without the belief.

I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your claim. I'm not even skeptical. It's simply of no particular consequence to me.

 

[Sheldon]

Believing that there is no dragon living in your garage is not "unbelief", nor "disbelief", So calling your belief "unbelief" or "disbelief" is both absurd and dishonest. And yet for many pages of this thread it's all you and other atheists do. Because you know you can't defend your own beliefs by the same criteria that you insist theists must defend theirs. It's petty, absurd, and dishonest.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

There is no dishonesty in speaking the truth about what atheism means, only in dishonestly claiming it means something else, as you keep doing.

Theism is a belief and carries a burden of proof, atheism is the lack or absence of that belief, and nothing more, and so does not carry a burden of proof.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say "believing there is NO dragon".
I said "disbelieving that there IS a dragon".

Seems like you don't understand the difference.
That seems to be the very root of your confusion and mistake here.

You don't understand that saying "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X".



What belief?
My atheism is a response to a claim. It's not a claim by itself.

Some guy says "god exists". I respond with "I don't believe you".
And as I just told you, that is not synonymous with "I believe the opposite".

The sooner you comprehend this, the sooner you'll realize how this entire thread is a case of a arguing a strawman.



Nope. Instead, for many pages we have been trying to explain to you that "I don't believe X" is NOT synonymous with "I believe the opposite of X".

But you seem unable to comprehend this.




I don't have beliefs concerning gods.
Theists are the ones with the beliefs.

Once more: the sooner you comprehend this, the sooner you'll realize that this entire thread is nothing but you arguing a strawman.



Well, they do. They are the ones making the god claims. So they are the ones with the burden of proof.
My disbelief of their claims is the logical, reasonable, rational and justifiable result of them failing to meet their burden of proof.

It is for the same reason that you do not believe that there is an undetectable dragon living in my garage.



The only dishonest thing here, is you doubling down on your strawman while just about everybody here - even including theists - has been trying to correct you on that.

But it's obviously in one ear and out the other.

Don't really know what else to tell you...............................................

If you don't get it now then either you simply lack the mental capacity to get it, or you are being willfully dishonest about this. I'll leave it in the middle which it is.

Either way, there doesn't seem much point in continuing this charade.
You keep telling us "this is what you believe" and we keep telling you that that isn't the case.

How you think you know better then we do ourselves what it is that we believe, is the epitome of arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.

So have fun drowning in this fallacious argument of yours. Not sure what it is that you are hoping to accomplish with this "strategy", but I can guarantee you that it won't be much.

I tried explaining this a while back.
You've explained it a lot better, so let's see what happens.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Stop lying.

We all know that you believe the theist is wrong. That you believe there is no God until he proves to you that there is. You say so over and over and over. So stop calling it "unbelief", because it isn't. It's the belief that you are right until someone else can prove to you that you are wrong. That's not agnosticism, and it's not skepticism. It's atheism.

You aren't fooling anyone but yourselves with all the "unbelief" BS. So stand up and defend your beliefs the way you demand everyone else does, or stop demanding that everyone else do so.

It's really as simple as that.

You know what? I'm getting a little tired of being called a liar when I've spent more time already than I probably should have trying to explain to you what an atheist is, only for you to repeatedly ignore it and argue some strawman instead.

Don't accuse others of lying when you're being this dishonest; it only ends up looking like a massive case of projection.
And maybe go take a course in logic and reason before attempting this again. You really need to brush up.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I have no reason to believe or disbelieve your claim. I'm not even skeptical. It's simply of no particular consequence to me.

Totally evading the point of the entire argument. And completely ignoring what I was asking of you. I give up unless you want to try explaining what I asked you to explain.

Of course it is irrelevant to you and everyone else. However, that wasn't the question or the point.

I really believe at this point there is no way you will understand the non-believers perspective unless you become a non-believer in gods.

 

[PureX]

Totally evading the point of the entire argument. And completely ignoring what I was asking of you. I give up unless you want to try explaining what I asked you to explain.

I answered your question honestly and directly. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear.

Of course it is irrelevant to you and everyone else. However, that wasn't the question or the point

That's too bad for you, I guess.

I really believe at this point there is no way you will understand the non-believers perspective unless you become a non-believer in gods.

I understand it better than you do: that your claim of "unbelief" is completely irrelevant, AND dishonest. Believing that every theist you've ever met or heard or read about is wrong is not "unbelief". Believing that no gods exist unless they can be proven to you to exist is also not "unbelief". These aren't even examples of skepticism. And it's questionable to claim agnosticism when you ignore your lack own of knowledge.

 

[ratiocinator]

I understand it better than you do: that your claim of "unbelief" is completely irrelevant, AND dishonest.

It really is getting tedious when you call other people liars while you yourself are posting blatant falsehoods about what others believe.

Believing that every theist you've ever met or heard or read about is wrong is not "unbelief".

Thinking that none of them have made a good enough case to accept, is what leads to unbelief. Just like people can't make the case for the dragon that's going to kill you tomorrow.

Believing that no gods exist unless they can be proven to you to exist is also not "unbelief".

Thinking that nobody has made a case that any gods exist is what leads to unbelief. Just like nobody has made the case to you that an invisible dragon will kill you tomorrow.

These aren't even examples of skepticism.

Neither are they remotely honest descriptions of what many unbelievers actually think.

I really don't get why you are so full of anger and resentment against people who disagree with you, to the point that you have to pretend that they don't have the beliefs they claim to have, but I advise you to reflect on that question before continuing your pointless rants.

 

[Sheldon]

I understand it better than you do: that your claim of "unbelief" is completely irrelevant, AND dishonest.

It's perfectly obvious your claims are a dishonest misrepresentation of atheism. Your claims are errant nonsense. The definition of atheism is disregarded by you repeatedly, just because it doesn't fit your agenda against atheism.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Despite multiple atheists explaining exhaustively their disbelief is not a contrary belief to theism, on and on you go, ignoring what everyone says, in order to peruse your angry dishonest antagonisms towards those who don't share your belief.

At this point you're fooling nobody but yourself...

 

[Sheldon]

it's questionable to claim agnosticism when you ignore your lack own of knowledge.

No it isn't, that's what the word means.

Agnostic
noun

1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

I am an agnostic about unfalsifiable claims, as I must be, and I am an atheist as I don't believe in any deity or deities, as there is no objective evidence for the claim. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, in fact I'd argue that believing something you admit you cannot know anything about is irrational.

 

[Sheldon]

These aren't even examples of skepticism.

Yes they are.

Scepticism
noun

1. a sceptical attitude; doubt as to the truth of something.

That sums up my atheism precisely.