User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Experience
Silly atheists

Why is it that the atheists on TAE say they do not deny the existence of a god, they merely lack belief? Also, they say there could be a god out there we just don't know. If you do not know, then why get so flustered with people believing in a god? You guys say there is no good reason to believe. Well, there is no good reason to live but you do. They claim to "lack" belief but they do have a belief they are just ignorant of it or purposely lying about their position. How can you say in one breath not having an epistemic position than in another reject those who do? The TAE does not have an epistemically position, because they say they lack one. Oh, don't forget the appeals to ignorance on the show as well. This is why theists think atheists are irrational, because they have no rational grounds to disbelieve in a god. Unless, I don't know is rational enough for you.

"Why is it that the atheists on TAE say they do not deny the existence of a god, they merely lack belief?" Because that's the definition of "atheist" -- what we mean when we call ourselves atheist.

You claim there's no good reason to live. I'm sorry your religion has warped your mind so much that you have to project your ridiculous position to someone you don't even know. In fact, we think life is precious precisely because we don't think our bodies are "soul traps" with a sole purpose of releasing the soul into the next life.

I'm sorry it bothers you that someone doesn't believe in the same fairy tales you do.

There's also plenty of reason to believe that Christianity is bullshit. Read "God: The failed hypothesis" for scientific reasons. Your holy book is a self-contradictory genocide manual. The tens of thousands of Christians sects with different doctrines is strong evidence you people have no clue. Christian history is murderous. Christians have consistently tried to suppress science. Prayer has proven itself to be a miserable failure. The Vatican is an international pedophile crime ring. Televangelists. Prosperity gospel. Rapture snuff porn.

Just in my personal interactions with Christians: they always HAVE to resort to lies, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation. When someone does this, as you have, they admit that they have nothing better. I already know that. Do you?

First of chuckles, I am not religious, so thanks for the appeal to psychology. Secondly, there is no objective reason to live. You are alive therefore you think it is or must be a good thing even though your life is about as meaningful as an insects. You may what to stop reading the philosophically and theologically challenged new atheists, because they have taken atheism from being intellectually respected and turned it into a hateful sarcastic intolerant movement. I sincerely doubt you have ever considered your opposition's position with an open mind. I am sure that is why you assume I am religious. Also, calling religion names is a bit childish, is it not? It does not bother me that you do not accept my beliefs, but it bothers me the hubris I find on this forum. Oh, you have not addressed the appeals to ignorance that I accused atheists of making. It seems there is a double standard. You would realize that if you approached the theist position rationally. Why don't you read a book on theology. I am sure that is beneath your smug self-righteousness. And as far as the last part goes, I have met my fair share of atheists who don't know their left from their right. By the way, you should think before you type, because your criticisms seem to reflect your own message. Oh, one more thing, if you are going to accuse me of something, then do me the favor of actually pointing them out to me. See, this is how people learn and come to understand their mistakes.I assume you care about Truth, or at least that is what I here atheists say. Is not the truth more important than your pride? By the way, if the God of the Bible were real don't you think rebelling against Him would be stupid, considering, from my understanding it would be against your better nature. Criticizing a god for genocide has no bearing on its existence, also it does not make you morally right by that god's standards. Seriously, is your pride that meaningful to you that you suspend reason for your own position? Oh, but I forgot, you have no position because you lack a belief. You are not making an epistemic claim. That being said, why should your opinions matter?

"By the way, if the God of the Bible were real don't you think rebelling against Him would be stupid, considering, from my understanding it would be against your better nature. Criticizing a god for genocide has no bearing on its existence, also it does not make you morally right by that god's standards"

The core tenant of Christianity and a number of other religions is to suck up to god so you get your perpetual orgasm. Look at all the objective harm that has caused to real people, while the believers, including you, can't come up with a shred of evidence for their god. You might think you've washed your hands of that responsibility, but you've sold out humanity for you own hedonism just like the others.

Here's some theology for you, from CS Lewis from Chapter 16. Miracles of the New Creation from Miracles: A Preliminary Study by C. S. Lewis, 1948, pp. 171-19.

One point must be touched on because, though I kept silence, it would none the less be present in most readers' minds. The letter and spirit of scripture, and of all Christianity, forbid us to suppose that life in the New Creation will be a sexual life; and this reduces our imagination to the withering alternative either of bodies which are hardly recognisable as human bodies at all or else of a perpetual fast. As regards the fast, I think our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer 'No', he might regard absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain would you tell him that the reason why lovers in their carnal raptures don't bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing that excludes it. We are in the same position. We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the other thing which, in Heaven, will leave no room for it. Hence where fulness awaits us we anticipate fasting. In denying that sexual life, as we now understand it, makes any part of the final beatitude, it is not of course necessary to suppose that the distinction of sexes will disappear. What is no longer needed for biological purposes may be expected to survive for splendour. Sexuality is the instrument both of virginity and of conjugal virtue; neither men nor women will be asked to throw away weapons they have used victoriously. It is the beaten and the fugitives who throw away their swords. The conquerors sheathe theirs and retain them. 'Trans-sexual' would be a better word than 'sexless' for the heavenly life.

When I say Christianity is about hedonism, please understand that I'm quoting your theologians.

You say there is no objective reason to live. I would point out the the only real reason for life is to perpetuate the species, to pass on your species genes. That is the reason (or purpose) behind evolution. To put it more simply the reason to life is life. Nothing spiritual about that.

I usually don't say much on these forums, but Don's comments seem to be grossly immature and baseless. Don accuses religious people of being deceitful by lying and using logical fallacies, but seems not to include himself in his criticism. Just because you believe in a god does not make you religious. And so what if I do believe in god. What makes your position any better or truer? Atheists claim that they represent reality, but consider that for a minute. What does reality show us. It shows us that it is far more complex than we once thought. Is there a god, who knows. I think it is possible, that does not make me a lire or stupid. If I said god talks to me then we have a problem, unless god really did. Atheists are no different than theists and I find it disturbing how easily these two sides are quick to point that our, as if one makes you better than the other. I here a lot of people on the TAE refer to themselves as agnostic atheists, but it seems they are always strong atheists when emotions come out to play. If you doubt this, read Don's response above.

My apologies. Let me clarify my original post. I meant they have to resort to lies, logical fallacies, or emotional manipulation when trying to convince others that their god exists.

I'm a strong atheist when it comes to Christianity. Their claims are clearly false.

As for "the universe is too complex. blah blah". Since when is ignorance about something proof of something else? That's a logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. Is that the best you've got? Thanks for helping to shore up my point.

I'll expand on Mr. Baker's position, i am a "strong atheist" or should i say very gnostic when it comes to ANY god(s) people write, talk or even just think about, since those beings are a human construct fueled by imagination, with countless versions already bullied out of existence by time and.. dominant religious "movements". None of those ever had basis in reality, at least nothing that they could present to others. Before somebody has factual evidence for their God(s) they can keep them to themselves, or at least stop brain washing children and tormenting and threatening people and screwing up humanity because of their imaginary friends.

Jayhennem, you are the last person who should expressing any opinion on this matter, because you are no different than obstinate evangelicals. Believing in a deity has nothing to do with brainwashing. And let us be fair here, secularists have their own agenda that they thrust down peoples throats. The difference is they like to white wash it and call by different names. Let's be honest theism, atheism, secularism, it's all bullshit that people express opinions about until they die. What makes you any different than those mind-fucked idiots that think they have one way comms with the divine. You state you "know". What the hell do you know that you have not regurgitated from someone else. As a matter of fact, what the hell have you added to our understanding of the cosmos. You are no different than those smug proud bigots that love to criticize others but cry when you can't get your own way and they hurt your feelings. I stand by to see the next smart ass retort you waste on your half-assed intellect.

Nate i hope you don't expect a rational and argumentative response to the verbal diarrhea that you blown off few posts above.. arrogance and ignorance seem to be your trump cards, not much point in talking to you i am afraid. Dunning-Kruger at it's best.

Don, even though you are being sarcastic, you are welcome. I know sarcasm is a big part of how new atheists like to get their point across. You are right, we don't know a lot of things and making things up to explain them is futile. Oh, but wait, they do that all the time in philosophy, science, especially theoretical physics that has no hard evidence to support the hypothesis. I am not talking about the god of Christianity and it is clear to me that you have some major issues regarding that god. Hell, if you were honest, which I believe you are not only when pushed into the corner you have issues with all supposed gods. Icahn never figure out why that is with atheists. Is it daddy issues or an antipersonality disorder? How can you ask me if an argument from ignorance is all I have when you appeal to it as much as anyone. Do you think atheist are free from their own criticism? Why do you atheists always assume that if a god exists that It must follow your rules. And has it ever occurred to you that if a god did interact with Ancient man that it might have been explained the way it has for so long. There is a lot we do not know, but should we keep our minds closed to the possibility? I honestly do not care if you believe or disbelieve, because I realize regardless of which you fall under it has no bearing on the existence or nonexistence of said being. I think you and I can both agree the true enemy of reason is religion and not theism. But when the atheist tries to shirk his responsibility and says he lacks a belief, then why should I take his nonrational position to be a rational or intellectual one. So, if you are only going to bring your nonrational daddy issues to the conversation, then it is clear why Willaim Lane Craig, a person I do not really respect intellectually, is destroying the new atheism movement intellectually. Remember, atheists have no alternative to appeal to ignorance as well and it could very well be that the god of Abraham is true. If it were Don would you still rebel? Are you that proud of the things you claim to understand. I am not trying to have you be antirational but seriously if it were true and we are meant to follow the will of this god would you rebel against your better nature? I think that you would, because and with all due respect I think you new atheists are like adolescents. That is why your comments about people lying and using fallacies does not affect me. You guys do it to and justify why you can. One last thing, in the other post when I said that there is no good reason to live you retorted sarcastically ya out my psychology without addressing the intellectual position itself. Ethics, when it comes done to it is an appeal to some fallacy or another. Logic does not tell us what is right or wrong or good or bad. Your life is not objectively important and just because you deem it so make no difference. To believe that contrary my atheist friend makes you sound like a religious person. I guess my point is, I think your position is dishonest. Hell, you started off this conversation think inf me a religionist when in fact I am an atheist. If you really think that your is the best tactic to confront theists or religionists, then I think atheism as an intellectual position is bankrupt, because apparently if you post is any indication we do not need to think about things just claim we lack the faculty to understand.

What did you consider sarcastic?

Sally wrote:

"You are right, we don't know a lot of things and making things up to explain them is futile. Oh, but wait, they do that all the time in philosophy, science, especially theoretical physics that has no hard evidence to support the hypothesis."

Do you actually think that a theoretical physicist doesn't have to provide "hard" evidence to support an idea? Are you not familiar with how mathematics comports with reality? You seem to be arguing that not being able to explain lightning and making up Zeus is comparable to coming up with the idea of the electromagnetic force.

Sally said:

I am not talking about the god of Christianity and it is clear to me that you have some major issues regarding that god. Hell, if you were honest, which I believe you are not only when pushed into the corner you have issues with all supposed gods. Icahn never figure out why that is with atheists. Is it daddy issues or an antipersonality disorder?

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. This, the lack of belief, is, or should be, the default position on anything. Do you automatically believe something you are told? Everything you are told? That's ludicrous. Oh, sure if someone tells you something rather mundane like they went to the store yesterday, sure, you accept it and move on. But if they told you that while at the store Brad Pitt was there...you're gonna just accept that without hesitation? And what if they told you that Brad Pitt had with him a talking snake? The more outrageous the statement, the more you should be skeptical. That's just common sense. And not believing in gods, in general, is what everyone does--even Christians and Muslims--as they don't believe in thousands of gods. Atheists just have one or so gods that we don't believe in. Remember it is the person espousing a belief that has the burden of proof. Atheism is not a position where we have to disprove the god concept--we just say that there is no evidence *FOR* it.

But as to claims of *specific* gods, especially Christianity, atheists have a hole metric shitload of information to use to evaluate the claim as to its merits--and we find it false in many different ways. Christian's claim that the bible is the inspired word of a all-knowing, omni-benevolent, all-mighty god and is perfect--we read it and find so many contradictions and false statements and unethical, even immoral philosophical positions that falsify the claim. Christians assert that their god is omnipotent and omniscient and upon examination we find these two abilities to be at odds with each other which renders the position false. I could go on and on. But in no way do atheists base their conclusions on rebelling from God--that would be like rebelling from the Tooth Fairy.

Sally said: How can you ask me if an argument from ignorance is all I have when you appeal to it as much as anyone.

You said that we don't or can't know therefore a supernatural entity. Dan says we don't know therefore...we don't know. There is no evidence for god so you say, there's no evidence there *isn't" a god therefore the default position is god is. Don says there's no evidence for god therefore the default position is there is no god. There could be gods. Lots of them. Or only one. But until/unless they deign to reveal themselves, Dan, and all other atheists, will pass.

Sally said:

Do you think atheist are free from their own criticism? Why do you atheists always assume that if a god exists that It must follow your rules. And has it ever occurred to you that if a god did interact with Ancient man that it might have been explained the way it has for so long. There is a lot we do not know, but should we keep our minds closed to the possibility?

I wrote a post on the absent god Clarke corollary which might be someplace to start when referring to ancient gods and keeping an open mind and the like.

Sally said:

But when the atheist tries to shirk his responsibility and says he lacks a belief, then why should I take his nonrational position to be a rational or intellectual one.

Atheists don't have the responsibility of providing evidence for the non-existence of god. It's like this--you, undoubtably--don't believe that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy and Snow White...do you actually believe that it is *your* position to prove they don't exist? Would you be "shirking your responsibility" to say that you are not able, or not willing, to take that position? Why then would Dan be doing so when he declares that he doesn't believe?

In my post I apparently believe that Don is Dan is Don. My sincerest apologies, sir. Feel free to call me Mark or Mack or Mackerel, for that matter, any time you want.

Please define what you mean by "God".

Don, why are you playing ignorant? You know exactly what is meant by God. Your rhetorical technique will not work with me. Socrates you are not. If I am not mistaken in a previous reply to I mentioned the god of the philosophers. But, the definition I or anyone else gives has little bearing on the existence of said being. I am not asserting that this being exists per se, but merely stating the possibility. After all, scientists, as I have mention theorize all the time, but that does not seem to bother you. But you as an atheist compartmentalize, right? Playing dumb is not going to get you very far, but then again you have no intellectual position (lack of a belief). You just criticize those of others.

Mankind has invented tens of thousands of gods. If you can't define your terms, please understand when I write you off as not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. If your god allows prayer, feel free to pray for an answer.

You say you're not religious, so I assume you're not talking about one of the gods of the major religions.

Frankly, you have yet to say anything of substance.

So let me get this straight, when you fail to accept the philosophical standard definition of atheism and resort to a nonrational position it is okay. Again, it seems like you selectively read what you want in my response. I said that I have already told you what god I was talking about and that you are not really interested in god whether existent or not. You seem to think god as some Tinkerbell character where if we believe then god exists. God's existence does not hinder on whether we define god properly or even if we understand god properly. Now, obviously this is not an argument for a deity, I just would like to point out that if you position is as a weak or agnostic atheist, then you have to grant the possibility that this being exists. I have heard this on your show often coming from the mouth of the shows most popular mouthpiece Matt D. But I am curious to know why you are willing to allow other deities to possibly exist but not the god of Christianity? What, god not giving you the attention you do not deserve? God not doing what you Deem right? Who are you in the grand scheme of things? You do realize that logical arguments have no bearing on whether a god exists or does not exist right? Just as logical arguments do not give us what is actually right or wrong. If I were to accept your definition of atheism, then I pretend to be an agnostic theist and have just as much reason to believe as you not to believe, unless you are deluded in thinking that atheism far more reasonable than theism. I know a lot of theists far more knowledgable that the cast of the TAE and they seem to have some pretty good reasons to believe in theism. Don, if you really think that what I have written here the last few days is lacking substance then my friend you are not a serious thinker. The first reason is as I have mentioned multiple times is that you have no rational position to argue. Secondly, from your responses it is clear that you do not think critically and do not read the whole response. Finally, it is often said the William Lane Craig would not change his mind based on the evidence (this I believe to be true based on his own comments), but I seriously doubt that you would either, because as your comments here have demonstrated, you are emotionally invested in your belief or disbelief. Oh, I recognize you are trying to cop out on this conversation by claiming I have said nothing of substance. This is exactly the kind of tactic that makes me question your intellectual integrity and your credibility.

With regard to your "standard philosophical definition of atheism," please understand that I've referred to the definition on the ACA web site. This is how atheists define themselves. Expecting someone to adhere to a 3rd-party definition and complaining that they don't is absurd. Atheism is a compound word based on "theism," the belief in gods. The "a" prefix means not, much like "asymmetric" means not symmetric. So atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I've defined my terms and you have not.

You say, "God's existence does not hinder on whether we define god properly or even if we understand god properly." That's true. But if you'd like to argue with an atheist (as I've defined it), you're effectively talking about whether that god can be BELIEVED. If you can't provide a coherent definition for the god or a coherent argument for its existence, then please understand that you have provided no basis for which an atheist to believe in the god. It's not dishonest on my part. It's just ignoring noise. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." I have yet to see any evidence from you. Just whining.

"But I am curious to know why you are willing to allow other deities to possibly exist but not the god of Christianity?" The problem of evil, Christianity's bloody history, biblical contradictions, the fact that nobody has come up with any credible evidence for the specific god, etc, etc. Now, I quote from my original response, which you ignored:

"There's also plenty of reason to believe that Christianity is bullshit. Read "God: The failed hypothesis" for scientific reasons. Your holy book is a self-contradictory genocide manual. The tens of thousands of Christians sects with different doctrines is strong evidence you people have no clue. Christian history is murderous. Christians have consistently tried to suppress science. Prayer has proven itself to be a miserable failure. The Vatican is an international pedophile crime ring. Televangelists. Prosperity gospel. Rapture snuff porn."

The book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" looks at about 50 aspects of science that disprove the existence of a Christian god. You have claimed there wasn't such evidence while completely ignoring the fact that I have provided it to you.

Your main "argument" seems to be shifting the burden of proof. If you want to claim that there is a god, it is your responsibility to provide evidence of that claim. The default position is lack of belief in something until there is sufficient evidence. The existence of your god isn't made any more likely if an atheist can't prove a universal negative. I've already pointed out that the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, and therefore not convincing. Please understand that, for all your bravado and insults, you have provided nothing in this conversation that gives me reason to change my position.

"I know a lot of theists far more knowledgable that the cast of the TAE and they seem to have some pretty good reasons to believe in theism." So what? If you don't have a good reason to believe, why should you? If you can't present any of this evidence, please understand that you are just wasting my time.

Don, I have watch the TAE and have read your comments on this forum and allow me to be the first to say this, but you need to stop and think before you speak. I am not trying to be rude but if your the best atheism has to offer as a reasonable defense, then no wonder religionists think we are like children rebelling against their parents. Sally clearly stated her position, although I think she was playing Devil's Advocate, but she practically gave you a book to read. My question to you is what did you offer in return that had any substance? Your criticism was lame at best.

what exactly is wrong with his defense? sally is irrational and refused to give her definition of god. you must be an idiot to not realize that every theist thinks god is something different. you're lame.

I followed Don's argument quite well, it was Sally who seemed to be throwing mud in the water. Refusing to clarify one's position is intentionally dishonest. I don't see how you can expect rational discussion to proceed under those terms.

There are a number of threads (this one included) that were with a troll. His motivations were not clear, but there wasn't honest debate going on. Various names were used.

"Why is it that the atheists on TAE say they do not deny the existence of a god, they merely lack belief? Also, they say there could be a god out there we just don't know. If you do not know, then why get so flustered with people believing in a god? "

Let's look at this question from a different perspective. Someone makes the claim, "Leprechauns exist." The default position, until it is demonstrated that leprechauns exist is that leprechauns do not exist. It cannot be demonstrated that no leprechauns anywhere in the universe at anytime have not existed. There could be leprechauns out there, we just don't know.

Yet, a rational, reasonable person would become frustrated with a person that continues to maintain that leprechauns exist without evidence to support her belief.

Thank you for that. It was so very necessary. I would only add--imagine they believed their Leprechauns wanted them to impose Leprechaun laws and morality upon you and the rest of the nation, and that an easy 80% of your population accepted they exist and enough of them voted to impose Leprechaun rules on everyone else--or damn close to it. Show me a god anymore tangible than a Leprechaun, and you'll have shown me something I've never seen before.

"They claim to "lack" belief but they do have a belief they are just ignorant of it or purposely lying about their position. "

This has been dealt with time and time again but here it goes one more time...

Joe claims he has $100 in his pocket but offers no evidence to support his claim. There are two positions I could take regarding belief in his claim. 1) I could believe him 2) I could disbelieve him

In the category of disbelief, there are two sub-positions I could take: a) I don't believe because I have neither evidence that he has $100 nor do I have evidence that he does not have $100. b) I don't believe him because I have evidence that he does not have $100.

Atheists, with regard to specific theistic claims, take position a) in the category of disbelief. Some atheists, called "strong atheists" take position b).

Qualia Soup has an excellent video on this subject http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk

as does Evid3nc3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BQVmvulmQ&feature=related

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv