Why do atheists say they don't have any beliefs about god, but that they "lack belief"...

Why do atheists say they don't have any beliefs about god, but that they "lack belief"? How can someone lack a belief on something like god? Either you believe or you don't. Why can't atheists just accept that they have a belief?

Fools lie. It's what they do best.

Atheist are under the mad delusion that atheism isn't a religion. It's a self-contrived psychoses due to hatred against the word itself.

I'm open to a god if there's some semblance of evidence.
But there isn't. It's comparable to believing in aliens, but at least aliens have sheer vastness of the universe to partially help make up for statistic unlikelihood of their existence.

Atheism is basically monotheism that rejected one more god.

Aliens are a statistical certainty

I am atheist and fairly say that I don't believe in the supernatural. I'm not a english native so I am not sure if the difference between having no faith and lacking faith is so great.

The existence of a logical universe with a single cause doesn't convince you?

Oh really, Drake?

What caused so-called single cause? If there is no cause for it than entire existence is illogical.

If you don't have evidence that points to God then you don't have to be a theist.
However, you still need positive evidence to assert that God doesn't exist otherwise you should be an agnostic.

Azathoth

No, not really. Apparent order from disorder is nothing new, and a single cause to many effects is hardly evidence for a supreme being.

Which God? Also no burden on proof lies on you, a atheist may say that he doesn't absolutly know if Azathoth exists, but he does not believe that the BlindIdiot God exists. Knowledge is not Faith.

Not that user but it's not any cause, he's talking about a first cause that is uncaused by necessity or the chain of events go past-infinite in an infinite regress.

>proving a negative
Lol

Also, in a perfect universe, wouldn't we be able to prove a negative?

If it were an illogical universe we wouldn’t be here.

We can prove a negative. For example "there are no Muslim members of the US Senate". That's a provable statement. But it actually doesn't matter because you can change any positive statement into a negative and vice versa by switching words around.

I can prove that there is not enough reasons for me to live in another state.
I can prove there is no bunny in my hand.

You don't know if they secretly are practicing Muslims. Or if there is a secret cover-up where they actually are registered. The US government works in mysterious ways.

What does it even means to be uncaused by necessity? Isn't *by* refers to the cause of some kind? How can you be uncaused... by some cause? At least infinite regress is simple and consistent with its approach. Any link of the chain is caused by other link and so on. Why is it necessary to make some kind of exception? Is it really necessary to make thousand logical steps, but give up on the next one and say that is all there are no caused beyond that? Seems completely arbitrary.

Alright, I've had my fun. I'm out.

The difference is these two statements:

"I don't have a belief that a god exists"

"I believe that there is no god"

most internet atheists claim they are the first one, not the second

What is the difference? Both are the same.

You are obviously correct; in fact, the statement "you cannot prove a negative" is a fucking negative argument that they assume is true.

It's really not. Do you lack a beliefe in Dobedoos, or don't you believe in Dobedoos?

To mean by necessity means there is a a trait or value about it that must exist or it would be illogical any other way. For example since we are having this conversation it is implied by necessity I'm doing it in front of a screen and typing out letters.
We can say by "necessity" because a cause cannot be an actual by itself but requires the past cause to actualize and be a potential for the next process. Ice has potential to be water, with heat it actually becomes water. Take note that ice doesn't become water by itself but requires heat to actually be water. Causes need an outside force to actualize.

There's really no practical difference. The man who does not have belief that a god exists is the same man who believes there is no god.

There's only one God.

There WAS a god and the Chinese have killed him.

> Causes need an outside force to actualize.
Then what is outside force for the first cause?

No matter how you spin it off, you can't really escape the dilemma where either
a) The universal logic of causation exists, therefore First Cause can't be an exception and must follow it. (i.e. First Cause must be caused by Firstier Cause and so on)
or
b) The logic of causation isn't universal therefore there is no real necessity for single first cause in the first place. (i.e. universe just happened to be logical without any real reason)
must be true.

Not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

>How can someone lack a belief on something like god? Either you believe or you don't.

Thanks OP. I had a good laugh and was transported back to 2008 for a moment.

No? How would you come to such a conclusion. Monotheism often has elegant pantheons of spiritual beings. Not all monotheism is deism.

I'm not sure how you could know that.

Atheism just finishing what monotheism started with its denial of other deities, pantheons, and religions. They just applied monotheistic views of other religions on monotheism itself. At least, modern day atheism that was born in the Christian tradition where the monopoly on truth isn't an absurd notion.

>Either you believe or you don't
they don't

The universe is complex, if we specify about planets we can say gravity is the outside force that makes them crash into each other to make bigger rocks. If we talk about what makes stars full of energy then we can talk about the nuclear reactions in them.

this

the fuck you on about OP?

Is it me or does that quote contradict itself?

Why do you worry about pointless shit like this?

>I don't believe in God
This can be construed as saying "I know god exist but I don't care about him" or "I don't care about the idea of God" or "I know God doesn't exist"

All those are different. Most atheist either go with second or third.

How can you say that you don't care about a most important thing in the universe and our lives? They are clearly lying.

Because not everyone has a God dick down their throat.

So if you don't believe in unicorns then you hold the belief that unicorns exist? Also I'm pretty sure the idea is similar to if someone told you your mother will die in her sleep tonight if you don't reply to this post, sure she might actually die from it, but they don't have any evidence for it, and certainly only a fool would act as if it were true.

This definition bothers me. Lack of belief in a god, with no claim of nonexistence, should be considered agnosticism. Atheism should be reserved for people who explicitly claim there is no God.