The requirements for believe God doesn't exist or disbelieving in God:

- Believing that something is false until proven true
"You can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist"

- Believing that the existence of God depends on the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus, orbiting teapots, etc...
"I don't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Thor, orbiting teapots, etc...so God must not exist either"

- Believing that if something doesn't sound true, it must be false
"It sounds like God is made up, fictional, a myth, a fairy tale, it just sounds like it, an invisible man in the sky"

- Believing that if God existed then only good things would happen in this world
"If God existed there should be no more suffering in the world, even though absolutely NO religion says since God exists only good things should happen on Earth"

- Believing that what the current evidence shows at the present time is the absolute truth
"Since there's no evidence at the present time that God exists, and nothing can be considered evidence, it indicates that God does not exist"

- Believing that religion is man-made, just a way primitive fools had to explain things
"Its just a way primitive people had to explain things, they looked up to sky, and made up fairy tales"

- Believing that there is nothing more to life that what we currently know
"The many-minds interpretation, space-time consciousness theory, or any theory that puts the mind existing independently of the brain cannot be true making the afterlife a possibility, only what we know right now must be true"

- Believing in naturalism or that there is no other cause besides nature
"There cannot be anything outside of nature, we don't need magic to explain anything, even if a naturalistic model never fits who cares, it just means that the naturalistic cause is unknown"

So basically if you're irrational, illogical, delusional, etc...then you should have a firm disbelief in God

Can you think of any other requirements?

Only this one holds:
Believing that religion is man-made
The rest are your personal fantasies.

Only this one holds:

The rest are your personal fantasies.

No they're not, which is you cannot and will not address them

I cannot and will not address them because they are patent nonsense.

There's nothing really there to address. How about some evidence to back up what amounts to a list of unsubstantiated accusations first?

There's nothing really there to address. How about some evidence to back up what amounts to a list of unsubstantiated accusations first?

Evidence? What do you mean by evidence? You mean evidence that atheists believe these things?

Yes.

PS When you say atheists do you mean all atheists... or only some? If only some, how meaningful is it to address the accusations to atheists as an homogenous group?

Yes.

PS When you say atheists do you mean all atheists... or only some? If only some, how meaningful is it to address the accusations to atheists as an homogenous group?

Sure I'll give evidence in OP

Honestly, I do not see anything unreasonable with VitalOne's original post. Everything he said seems completely logical.

And yes, this is the FIRST time I actually agree with him on something.

So basically if you're irrational, illogical, delusional, ignorant, etc...then you should have a firm disbelief in God



I retract my previous statement. The quote above is something I do not agree with, mainly due to the way he approached it.

As I've always told you, if you want to attempt to make a point in this forum, insults will only hinder your agenda.

Sigh.

I'm not an atheist so, frankly, don't have the energy or the inclination to respond to this crap.

1. I don't believe it's possible, on current evidence (ie none), to prove the existence of God.
2. I don't believe it's possible to disprove it, full stop.
3. I don't believe it's possible, on current evidence (ie none), to prove that the sun is orbited by microscopic teapots.
4. See point 2.

Go and troll somewhere else.

The problem with the opening post is that he's quoting imaginary cretins.
God hasn't been disprooved so he exits LOL!!!1!!
Anyone can summon imaginary cretins in order to support any flimsy proposition. It's not evidence of anything.

No I didn't, and yes you did - you stupid cunt. :)

No I didn't, you stupid cunt.

Heh, yes you did, you really think that if orbiting teapots don't exist, then God doesn't exist...a typical atheistic non-sequitur argument

My point is this: it is impossible to prove that something - any fucking thing - doesn't exist.

It is also that, in view of the above, the onus lies rather with those who believe it does exist to convince the rest of us.

Go.

My point is this: it is impossible to prove that something - any fucking thing - doesn't exist.

It is also that, in view of the above, the onus lies rather with those who believe it does exist to convince the rest of us.

Go.

Uhm...you're using an argument from ignorance

It is possible to prove that something does not exist, is incorrect and wrong, or unlikely to exist

Regardless of if the burden on proof is on us, it doesn't change anything I listed

It is possible to prove that something does not exist, is incorrect and wrong, or unlikely to exist
Let's ignore what's "incorrect and wrong" - I don't even know what you mean by that. And let's ignore the unlikelys - they're not proof.

Prove that solar teapots don't exist.

Go.

Where did you get the idea that there are a list of "requirements" for (not) believing in something?
We know that infinity and zero exist, right? We use these two "quantities" all the time in math equations, and zero is used as a placeholder.
But zero, by definition, has no value. Does it exist? Can it be added to a set of (real) numbers? Is it even a number (can "nothing" be a value)? Infinity is also something we can never "know", we can only "approach" it. Does this mean it is something forever beyond us? If so, can we really use it like we do with math, and philosophical discussion?
It is possible to prove that something does not exist
Except that you could 'count' the grains of sand on a beach and not find a single identical grain to any other (they all look different). Does this mean that an identical grain (to any of the ones you have looked at so far) cannot exist on some beach somewhere? It cannot be proved that no such exists without, in fact, counting them all.
This turns out to be a bit of a problem with an infinity of 'things' (grains of sand, galaxies, thoughts, numbers, ...).

Let's ignore what's "incorrect and wrong" - I don't even know what you mean by that. And let's ignore the unlikelys - they're not proof.

Prove that solar teapots don't exist.

Go.
Solar teapots? Exist where around the Sun?

That's easy just put a satellite can see fine details in space...then you can verify if it's true or not....

Again this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God...a typical atheistic tactic

Where did you get the idea that there are a list of "requirements" for (not) believing in something?
We know that infinity and zero exist, right? We use these two "quantities" all the time in math equations, and zero is used as a placeholder.
But zero, by definition, has no value. Does it exist? Can it be added to a set of (real) numbers? Is it even a number (can "nothing" be a value)? Infinity is also something we can never "know", we can only "approach" it. Does this mean it is something forever beyond us? If so, can we really use it like we do with math, and philosophical discussion?

Except that you could 'count' the grains of sand on a beach and not find a single identical grain to any other (they all look different). Does this mean that an identical grain (to any of the ones you have looked at so far) cannot exist on some beach somewhere? It cannot be proved that no such exists without, in fact, counting them all.
This turns out to be a bit of a problem with an infinity of 'things' (grains of sand, galaxies, thoughts, numbers, ...).
Sure you can prove it cannot exist by proving that it cannot have an identical

Again, you're dodging out of the argument (typical atheist) this has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God and is not at ALL analogous

Ah, but the teapots are just too small to be seen with even our most powerful satellites. They're also equipped with cloaking devices.

Try again.

Sure you can prove it cannot exist by proving that it cannot have an identical
How? :confused:

Ah, but the teapots are just too small to be seen with even our most powerful satellites. They're also equipped with cloaking devices.

Try again.

Cloaking devices? Wtf? Then the existence is unverifiable, so its unknown

Again, this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the existence of God...

Its not analogous, the concept of God is completley different from your teapots

How? :confused:

Show that each grain of sand arises in a unique way, just like how there aren't identical fingerprints...

Show that each grain of sand arises in a unique way, just like how there aren't identical fingerprints...
Yes, that's the goal.

Now let's have the methodology.

Yes. Frustrating, isn't it?

No, not really, its pretty simple, since its unverifiable, its unknown whether or not its true...


Floundering like a fish on a beach.
Hardly...I don't know whtf you guys are going with this...

I mean you sound like fools...

Its like someone saying "Well you know I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so the theory of relativity must be false, it doesn't matter if it isn't analogous at all or if the geocentric theory has nothing to do with the theory of relativity"

Yes, that's the goal.

Now let's have the methodology.

Why do you keep changing the subject from the existence of God into something you choose in order to ridicule theism? It doesn't make any sense like I've repeatedly pointed out

No, not really, its pretty simple, since its unverifiable, its unknown whether or not its true...
So you're conceding defeat in your attempt to prove that my hi-tech, microscopic tea-pots don't exist? Shame. They make a lovely cuppa.
Its like someone saying "Well you know I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so the theory of relativity must be false, it doesn't matter if it isn't analogous at all or if the geocentric theory has nothing to do with the theory of relativity"
Here's the point again: It's impossible to prove that something, anything - God, Bigfoot, teapots - don't exist.

Therefore, since it's impossible to prove that God (or bigfoot, or teapots) don't exist - the onus is entirely on believers to prove that they do.

So here we are again.

Go.

So you're conceding defeat in your attempt to prove that my hi-tech, microscopic tea-pots don't exist? Shame. They make a lovely cuppa.
Well ok, that's true, but it's only true if it's unverifiable



Its like someone saying "Well you know I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so the theory of relativity must be false, it doesn't matter if it isn't analogous at all or if the geocentric theory has nothing to do with the theory of relativity"
It's impossible to prove that something, anything - God, Bigfoot, teapots - don't exist.
Sure, you can prove that bigfoot is unlikely to eixst if there is absence of fossil evidence when there should be evidence present, you can also show the existence of flying teapots is unlikely

Again all yuo've managed to do is dodge out of the argument, I never said God exists since you cannot prove God doesn't exist, you escaped the entire argument

Ah. But I've never claimed that God doesn't exist.

I'm not an atheist - remember? ;)

I am a cowardly fence-sitter, VitalOne. Yours to convince.

Go.

Ah. But I've never claimed that God doesn't exist.

I'm not an atheist - remember? ;)

I am a cowardly fence-sitter, VitalOne. Yours to convince.

Go.
This post isn't about convincing people to believe in God, its about the requirements to not believe in God

I don't believe in God. None of those arguments apply to me.

So what now? If they're 'necessary' requirements I think I'm all that's needed to disprove your thesis.

I don't believe in God - but it's not for any of the reasons you claim it is.

So, um... you're wrong.

I don't believe in God. None of those arguments apply to me.

So what now?

Well then you neither believe nor disbelieve, so you're agnostic

Correct, I don't believe.
But not for any of the reasons you said.
So, um... you're wrong.

Correct, I don't believe.
But not for any of the reasons you said.
So, um... you're wrong.

Well that's why I asked if you can think of any other requirements...

Wait I think I got it...

How about: "awaiting convincing evidence"?

How about: "awaiting convincing evidence"?

That reason is already listed, something is false until proven true

No it isn't. :)

No it isn't. :)

Yes it is, also your case doesn't really apply, you neither believe nor disbelieve

How about: "awaiting convincing evidence"?
That reason is already listed, something is false until proven true
No it isn't. :)
Saying:

"You can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist"

Isn't the same as saying:

"You can't prove God exists, so I'm reserving judgement until you or someone else does, or until I die."

Your reasoning - the first statement - doesn't apply to me (or to anyone with a brain, in fact).

And yet: I don't believe.

So: you're wrong.

That first statement isn't, contrary to your OP, "necessary" for not believing. Is it?

So: you're wrong.

Saying:

"You can't prove God exists, so God doesn't exist"

Isn't the same as saying:

"You can't prove God exists, so I'm reserving judgement until you or someone wlse does, or until I die."

Your reasoning - the first statement - doesn't apply to me (or to anyone with a brain, in fact).

And yet: I don't believe.

So: you're wrong.

That first statement isn't, contrary to your OP, "necessary" for not believing. Is it?

So: you're wrong.

Yeah, but THIS POST DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU, this post applies to people who disbelieve in God, you neither believe nor disbelieve but reserve judgement

So I win, I'm right, you're wrong

No it applies to people who don't believe in God. And I don't believe in God.

Are you changing the rules now? At this late stage?

No it applies to people who don't believe in God. And I don't believe in God.

Are you changing the rules now? At this late stage?

No, you neither believe nor disbelieve in God, you reserve judgement, saying you don't believe in God is misleading since yuo don't believe in God nor disbelieve in God, but reserve judgement

This post applies to people who disbelieve in God, who say God doesn't exist

Then you should be more careful in drawing up your thread titles.

And your caricatures. ;)

This post applies to people who disbelieve in God, who say God doesn't existSo just the strong atheists then...

I see no genuine attempt at discussion here. Closed for trolling. If others want to give me good reason why it should be reopened, please send a PM.