Atheists - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

Atheism does not require faith in any meaningful sense of the word. That is fallacy made up by the religious to try and put their ridiculous claims on equal footing with rational behavior. It takes faith to make claims that things are opposed to how all evidence show them to be. It does not require any faith to deny such claims. There is no reason to believe there is a god.

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

There is no reason to believe there is not a god.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

SquishypuffDave

Gender: Male
Age: 33

Bork wrote:

Atheism does not require faith in any meaningful sense of the word. That is fallacy made up by the religious to try and put their ridiculous claims on equal footing with rational behavior.

Looks like we got a conspiracy theorist on our hands. Wink

Bork wrote:

It takes faith to make claims that things are opposed to how all evidence show them to be. It does not require any faith to deny such claims.

Well there's the crux of the matter: you believe there is compelling evidence against the existence of God. The point that has been raised is that atheism is not a default position in the absence of evidence for or against.

thejoj96

BORK IS BACK!!!! Very Happy

There is no reason for the idea of a god in the first place.

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

There are plenty of reasons, and a lot of people with them, more than without.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

Bork wrote:

Atheism does not require faith in any meaningful sense of the word. That is fallacy made up by the religious to try and put their ridiculous claims on equal footing with rational behavior. It takes faith to make claims that things are opposed to how all evidence show them to be. It does not require any faith to deny such claims. There is no reason to believe there is a god.

Could you provide any evidence to this thread against the existence of God?

A somewhat related point I'd been thinking of this afternoon: if I make the claim that every bit of matter that is not under observation automatically becomes spaghetti most everyone here would deny this claim. Of course, we cannot prove whether or not this is true, as it cannot really be proven or disproven in any way. Does a statement that has no proof to back it up, but also no proof disqualifying it, automatically make it legitimate? Why is there not an equally heated debate about the existence of leprechauns as there is the existence of God, considering we have about the same amount of proof for and against the existence of both? In this sort of scenario, I'd say that it makes most sense to deny the existence of God - despite that God cannot be unproven - simply because to accept God because of his unprovability means that you must accept all unprovable statements.
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

GrimRod

Gender: Female

Jackwc wrote:

Could you provide any evidence to this thread against the existence of God?

A somewhat related point I'd been thinking of this afternoon: if I make the claim that every bit of matter that is not under observation automatically becomes spaghetti most everyone here would deny this claim. Of course, we cannot prove whether or not this is true, as it cannot really be proven or disproven in any way. Does a statement that has no proof to back it up, but also no proof disqualifying it, automatically make it legitimate? Why is there not an equally heated debate about the existence of leprechauns as there is the existence of God, considering we have about the same amount of proof for and against the existence of both? In this sort of scenario, I'd say that it makes most sense to deny the existence of God - despite that God cannot be unproven - simply because to accept God because of his unprovability means that you must accept all unprovable statements.

Can you bring me some chips?

Jackwc
Queen Of The Forums

Location: Aaaanywhere Sex: Incredible

GrimRod wrote:

Can you bring me some chips?

Get some yourself? You're closer than I am...
_________________
A dick that's bigger than the sun.

Music sucks. Check out my favourite movies, fam:
http://letterboxd.com/jackiegigantic/

GrimRod

Gender: Female

Jackwc wrote:

Get some yourself? You're closer than I am...

But I don't want to mingle with the extended family...

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Jackwc wrote:

Could you provide any evidence to this thread against the existence of God?

A somewhat related point I'd been thinking of this afternoon: if I make the claim that every bit of matter that is not under observation automatically becomes spaghetti most everyone here would deny this claim. Of course, we cannot prove whether or not this is true, as it cannot really be proven or disproven in any way. Does a statement that has no proof to back it up, but also no proof disqualifying it, automatically make it legitimate? Why is there not an equally heated debate about the existence of leprechauns as there is the existence of God, considering we have about the same amount of proof for and against the existence of both? In this sort of scenario, I'd say that it makes most sense to deny the existence of God - despite that God cannot be unproven - simply because to accept God because of his unprovability means that you must accept all unprovable statements.

This is exactly what I wanted to say but could not find the words to say it. Well done.