Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I think I understand your question, and there's confusion with ACB's answer.

You asked:

What do you mean when you say "no evidence that atheism is true or right?

I think he means that there's no evidence that God doesn't exist. Which isn't even controversial, since you admitted that you don't have any evidence.

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it

And how you aren't understanding how you are sawing off the very branch that you're standing on, is beyond me.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

[RickD]

Kenny,

I think I understand your question, and there's confusion with ACB's answer.

You asked:

What do you mean when you say "no evidence that atheism is true or right?

I think he means that there's no evidence that God doesn't exist. Which isn't even controversial, since you admitted that you don't have any evidence.

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it

And how you aren't understanding how you are sawing off the very branch that you're standing on, is beyond me.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Nobody is believing any of what you're saying. I don't even think you really believe it, but you're too stubborn to let go.

[Storyteller]

That life is created by already existing life sources. Trace it back Ken.

Okay I gotcha. The idea that matter has always existed is something I’ve mentioned many times before that makes sense to me. The idea that the cell is one of many substances of matter that has always existed, is a discussion that has lead to countless “face palms” from RickyD, Philip, and countless others I’ve discussed with on this forum.

Why does it make sense to you?

(Sorry if any of my posts come across as obtuse or whatever, im just trying to make sure i understand your thoughts Ken)

[Storyteller]

Kenny,

I think I understand your question, and there's confusion with ACB's answer.

You asked:

What do you mean when you say "no evidence that atheism is true or right?

I think he means that there's no evidence that God doesn't exist. Which isn't even controversial, since you admitted that you don't have any evidence.

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it

And how you aren't understanding how you are sawing off the very branch that you're standing on, is beyond me.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Depends on why what you were holding on to disappears.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I think I understand your question, and there's confusion with ACB's answer.

You asked:

I think he means that there's no evidence that God doesn't exist. Which isn't even controversial, since you admitted that you don't have any evidence.

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it

And how you aren't understanding how you are sawing off the very branch that you're standing on, is beyond me.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Nobody is believing any of what you're saying. I don't even think you really believe it, but you're too stubborn to let go.

Atheism is to reject what someone tells you concerning a specific issue. Do you agree?

[Kenny]

That life is created by already existing life sources. Trace it back Ken.

Okay I gotcha. The idea that matter has always existed is something I’ve mentioned many times before that makes sense to me. The idea that the cell is one of many substances of matter that has always existed, is a discussion that has lead to countless “face palms” from RickyD, Philip, and countless others I’ve discussed with on this forum.

Why does it make sense to you?

(Sorry if any of my posts come across as obtuse or whatever, im just trying to make sure i understand your thoughts Ken)

Why does the idea that material had to have existed eternally make sense to me? Because the idea that something can come from nothing does not make sense, and material is all that we know that exists.
Why does the idea that the cell may have been one of the many substances of matter that existed eternally? Because to me it makes more sense than the idea that life derived from metals, ceramics, or some other type of material.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

I think I understand your question, and there's confusion with ACB's answer.

You asked:

I think he means that there's no evidence that God doesn't exist. Which isn't even controversial, since you admitted that you don't have any evidence.

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it

And how you aren't understanding how you are sawing off the very branch that you're standing on, is beyond me.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Depends on why what you were holding on to disappears.

As I’ve said many times before, everything I believe is always up for question, and can be altered and/or discarded upon new found information or evidence.
The reason what I was holding on to disappeared was due a desire to seek the truth, which lead to research, which lead to new found information and evidence, which lead to me altering and/or discarding everything I believed to be true concerning theism, thus I default to Atheism.

[RickD]

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it


Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Nobody is believing any of what you're saying. I don't even think you really believe it, but you're too stubborn to let go.

Atheism is to reject what someone tells you concerning a specific issue. Do you agree?

In as small much as theism is just a rejection of the belief that there is no God.

For the 100th time....

Theism=Belief that a creator, sustainer, eternal, etc., God exists.

Atheism=Belief that a creator, sustainer, eternal, etc., God doesn't exist.

It's as simple as that.

By denying the definition of atheism, you're just sticking your head in the sand, and refusing to deal with realities that are unpleasant to you.

[Kenny]

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Nobody is believing any of what you're saying. I don't even think you really believe it, but you're too stubborn to let go.

Atheism is to reject what someone tells you concerning a specific issue. Do you agree?

In as small much as theism is just a rejection of the belief that there is no God.

For the 100th time....

Theism=Belief that a creator, sustainer, eternal, etc., God exists.

Atheism=Belief that a creator, sustainer, eternal, etc., God doesn't exist.

It's as simple as that.

By denying the definition of atheism, you're just sticking your head in the sand, and refusing to deal with realities that are unpleasant to you.

Going by your definition; to deny/reject the existence of something is not holding onto something, to deny/reject is to default to the original position.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Going by your definition; to deny/reject the existence of something is not holding onto something, to deny/reject is to default to the original position.

First,

It's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Second, atheism isn't a default position.

We have two positions here. One is a belief in the existence of God. The other is a belief that God doesn't exist.

I don't see how you can still deny that atheism is a belief.

You simply refuse to have an honest conversation.

Until you decide to be honest, I'm not going to engage you further.

I'm not wasting my time any longer, on someone who refuses to have an honest discussion.

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Going by your definition; to deny/reject the existence of something is not holding onto something, to deny/reject is to default to the original position.

First,

It's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Second, atheism isn't a default position.

We have two positions here. One is a belief in the existence of God. The other is a belief that God doesn't exist.

I don't see how you can still deny that atheism is a belief.

You simply refuse to have an honest conversation.

Until you decide to be honest, I'm not going to engage you further.

I'm not wasting my time any longer, on someone who refuses to have an honest discussion.

If we make the leap that believing something does not exist is a belief position, what other belief positions might one have?

*The belief Santa doesn’t exist
*The belief the world is not flat?
*The belief poiuytrewq is not a word
*The belief asdfghjkl is not a word
*The belief that I am not 10 feet tall

Really?? Are you going to claim that those are all belief positions?
To claim “X” is true is the belief position
To not believe “X” is true, to doubt the claim that “X” is true, to be skeptical is the default position not a belief position.

[abelcainsbrother]

If you are living your life as an atheist then it cannot be a default position. You are living it out as if a god does not exist. You are gambling with your life living as an atheist and yet not only do you have no evidence you are correct to be living as an atheist but you have no desire to make sure you are correct.So nobody should base how they think and live their life on anything you've got to say.

[abelcainsbrother]

Kenny wrote:
Going by your definition; to deny/reject the existence of something is not holding onto something, to deny/reject is to default to the original position.

First,

It's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Second, atheism isn't a default position.

We have two positions here. One is a belief in the existence of God. The other is a belief that God doesn't exist.

I don't see how you can still deny that atheism is a belief.

You simply refuse to have an honest conversation.

Until you decide to be honest, I'm not going to engage you further.

I'm not wasting my time any longer, on someone who refuses to have an honest discussion.

If we make the leap that believing something does not exist is a belief position, what other belief positions might one have?

*The belief Santa doesn’t exist
*The belief the world is not flat?
*The belief poiuytrewq is not a word
*The belief asdfghjkl is not a word
*The belief that I am not 10 feet tall

Really?? Are you going to claim that those are all belief positions?
To claim “X” is true is the belief position
To not believe “X” is true, to doubt the claim that “X” is true, to be skeptical is the default position not a belief position.

Yes they are belief positions and we think about all of them and we live our lives believing those things based on evidence.You just choose to ignore evidence and have no desire to make sure you're correct.

[abelcainsbrother]

The God of the Bible is described in a way that makes it impossible to disprove. I can't even disprove the existence of Santa Clause; does that mean I can't be skeptical? IMO the inability to disprove something has never been a reason to believe it


Perhaps you can explain it to me.

And as you write this, you are still oblivious to the fact that as a materialist, you must rely on evidence, because that's all you've got. Proof of God's existence is swept under the rug, and ignored, because it's not empirical evidence. Yet you hold to atheism, without any evidence that God doesn't exist.

Your entire worldview is based on faulty reasoning.

Atheism is not something you hold on to, it's the default position; it's what you fall back onto when what you were holding on to disappears.

Depends on why what you were holding on to disappears.

As I’ve said many times before, everything I believe is always up for question, and can be altered and/or discarded upon new found information or evidence.
The reason what I was holding on to disappeared was due a desire to seek the truth, which lead to research, which lead to new found information and evidence, which lead to me altering and/or discarding everything I believed to be true concerning theism, thus I default to Atheism.

Don't be fooled by atheists pretending like evidence is important to them.It is a fake act they are putting on.Not only do atheists refuse to go by evidence but they refuse to make sure they are correct. They live as an atheist by total blind faith while criticizing and rejecting all of our evidence Christianity is true.They reject,deny and explain away any and all evidence people who offer for God and Christianity being true but they believe atheists who offer no evidence.This proves atheists refuse to go by evidence and refuse to make sure they are correct.Atheists need to come clean and admit atheism is living in denial of God by choice without any evidence you're correct and stop acting like evidence is important to them and could change their mind.

[Kenny]

If you are living your life as an atheist then it cannot be a default position.

Why?

You are living it out as if a god does not exist.

No we live our lives as if your concept of God doesn’t exist. Don’t assume your concept of God is the only concept of God

You are gambling with your life living as an atheist and yet not only do you have no evidence you are correct to be living as an atheist but you have no desire to make sure you are correct.

I have as much evidence my position is correct as you have that your position is correct IOW you're gambling as much as I am