I see you're starting to catch on, but you don't quiet realize it yet. You just need a little more prodding.

Atheism is the default position. You're not born a theist.

If you believe that one day a handsome man will marry you and this belief didn't come from a vacuum, then where did your belief come from? What caused it? I think whatever caused it indicated to you or made clear to you (definition #2) that it is true that it will happen. Similarly, what caused you to grow up having that expectation? If instead you have no expectation, but simply want that to happen, or it's just wishful thinking, then what is the cause of your confidence, conviction, or trust that it will happen? If there is no cause, then I do not see how you could have formed that belief.

I think everyone holds at least some beliefs that aren't actually objectively true, nonetheless all of our beliefs are caused by something. If you think that your parents are perfect, I think it's because some evidence indicated to you that it was true, but you arrived at that conclusion because you misinterpreted the evidence.

I do not think you could believe faeries were causing your problems without something indicating to you that it is true. If the evidence was strong enough that you were willing to change your behavior, then it would qualify as a belief. I went into more details about why I disagree with you in a later post. I think so because Jesus' resurrection validated what he said, because of my experience, and because it is logically necessary. John 14:15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. I think evidence by definition has a broad sense. All evidence does is increase the probability that something is true, and the stronger the evidence, the stronger the probability. At some point the probability becomes high enough that it serves as grounds for belief. Based on the past evidence of the Sun's persistent presence, I think there is a very high probability that the sun will not go out tomorrow. Am I not justified in using that as evidence to believe that it won't go out tomorrow? The thing is that what counts as credible evidence is completely up to you. You think there is credible evidence for your beliefs, which is why you formed them. The same goes for me, but I'm sure we disagree about what counts as credible evidence. If a child watches Star Wars and forms the belief that Vader is real, it would be because he considers the movie to be credible evidence for his existence. On the other hand, if no evidence indicated to him that it was true, then what caused his belief? Sorry if I've confused you. Claiming that he thinks the reasons for believing it are poor is very different from claiming there are no reasons to believe it. If there were no reason to believe it, then my belief would be an uncaused belief that came from nothing, which I would have no justification to continue believing.

Good. I am glad we finally agree. Athiesm is the complete lack of belief of any theism, thus in any sort of God or gods. Since a total lack of belief in a thing logically implies the disbelief in said thing, we can agree that athiests disbelieve in any sort of God or gods. For this to be true, they must also believe that no God or gods exist. Therefore, atheists believe in a negative. Good talk everybody! :)

Nope, atheists don't make any claim. Lack of a claim isn't a negative claim and besides, a negative claim wouldn't even make sense. But I can see how you dearly holding on to this straw man for dear life makes it easier for you to convince yourself that the ultimate theological burden of proof isn't on the theists' positive claims.

If you're not going to connect the dots carefully and instead opt to scribble haphazardly all over the paper, then heck, why not just go all the way and become a solipsist?

But they do... that is what the word means.

Thiests believe that a God or Gods exist. Atheist, conversely, believe that no God or Gods exist.

This is parallel to the the way morality has morals, and amorality, conversely, has no morals.

It is the way words work. :)

Did you not hear me mention that I am Existentialist? I have a hard enough time figuring out the meaning of my own existence without complicating matters by thinking about whether or not anyone else truly exists. I'll just take the path of least resistance by assuming they do and move on with my life. *smirks*

I'm not sure what your native language is, but contorting and conflating the "a-" prefix to have the same meaning that the "anti-" prefix serves, as you have been doing, certainly isn't how things work in English.

Unless you have something new to add that isn't just repeating the same discredited lines, we're done. You're not even presenting arguments anymore; you are merely offering empty contradictions.

It makes no sense to believe that god or gods exist, but not claim that they do. The truth claims can not sensibly be separated from the belief and as the negation, atheism is no different.

Sure words can gain new meaning, but it makes little sense to redefine it in such away that it applies to trees, rocks, babies, animals, etc.. There is no such think as a default position and in formal debates both people have the burden of proof to argue for their position. If you simply lack the belief in god or gods, but won't make the claim to know that they don't exist, then you've taken the agnostic position of the truth claims being unknowable, and you've just mislabeled yourself as an atheist. I've come to grips with that fact that people will disagree with my on the Internet, so I don't take it personally. An atheists is one who claims no god or gods exist, so that applies to all gods.

The 'a-' prefix means "the complete absence of", and I never said different. However, theism is the belief in the existence divinity, thus atheism is the complete absence of the belief in the existence of divinity. If you wish to convince me, please tell me how a person can have no belief in the existence something, yet believe in the possibility that it exists?

Discredited in your mind, perhaps. In my mind, you have made no argument to sway me in my opinion that atheists are ridiculous because they believe in a negative (the utter nonexistence of divinity). Everything you, and others, have described to me so far has been more applicable to the views of an agnostic than a true atheist (which is not a bad thing, imho).

So you really believe there is a chance that Xenu and team jamotide (the god team that created all other gods) exist? Then I would call you ridiculous. The chance is with absolute certainty ZERO because we KNOW that someone just made them up.

Yeah exactly, that is why agnosticism is BS.

Easy: The bridge is safe because your friend said so, and your friend is right because the bridge is safe....because he said so.
God exists because the bible said so, and the bible is right because god exists....because the bible said so.



But that is not how it goes.That is not what I want from them. I ask them why they believe this particular BS instead of some other. I ask them how they can deny Santa Claus and the tooth fairy but believe in another myth. I wonder why they deny one scientific theory but readily accept others. I want to know why some rules from the bible are very important to them while don't care or don't even know about others. I want to understand why they want to worship this murderous 1984 dictator figure they dream of. You can have alot of fun poking holes into their bubbles. No internet discussion is this easy. (see above)

1.Your evidence is worthless. 2.Nobody said there is no cause for delusions.

Easy. There is no evidence that Bigfoot really exists, so by default (see also: null hypothesis), I don't believe in its his existence.

Holding the default position is NOT EQUIVALENT to making an affirmative, positive claim of certainty such as "I know that Bigfoot absolutely does not exist", because he very well may. And if you were to actually capture it and drop its hairy carcass on my doorstep and allow me and the scientific community to independently investigate it to make sure it isn't some random Russian hitchhiker you shot and stuffed in a very convincing gorilla costume, then I'm going to change my mind. But right now, until that happens, you can describe me as an "aBigfootist".

"By default" is absolutely key here, and from your own statements I am not sure that you've picked up on this nuance. It's the same nuance between zero and null. The same nuance between an empty set versus a set that doesn't exist at all. If anything, try to make an honest effort to grok this.

We can safely discount the possibility that the gods you just made up are false, because we know, by your own admission, that you made it up. Thus, we have proof, because all possibly avenues of existence have been refuted.

However, one cannot discount that there might be a God somewhere else with exactly the same properties you just described. However improbable the coincidence might be, there is always the possibility until all possible avenues have been refuted. It is not something I would allow to change the way I live my life in the least, but I must admit that the possibility exists

As for Xenu, I lump him in with any other cult God. Highly improbable, but possible until proven otherwise. Also, not something that would change the way I live my life in the least.

Come on, just assume for the sake of discussion that I did not tell you that I made them up. That is how all religions work.
But since you believe there is any chance that Xenu exists,then I hereby officially declare you ridiculous.

Edit: Plus it could be a lie that I made them up, can you really be sure...

Okay, so since there is no proof of Bigfoot, you hypothesize (i.e. propose) that there is no Bigfoot. Based on this proposition, you decide that you have an absolute lack of belief in the existence of Bigfoot. You do this with full knowledge that there is the possibility that your hypothesis, as improbable as it may be, might be disproven in the future. The fact that you admit that there is a possibility you might be wrong suggests that your lack of belief in Bigfoot is not totally absolute.