The Disingenuousness of Many Online Atheists. Why Do they So Often Employ this Tactic?

[Rachelspiks]

What upstanding gentlemen these two are (not)!

I was just blocked by an atheist for... simply disagreeing with him, I guess. I was going to post the following reply.
"Atheism is the disbelief in gods. Not the belief in the nonexistence of gods." - the atheist who blocked me
My response - "A distinction without a difference, for if you disbelieve in the existence of the gods, isn't that logically (and factually) equivalent to basically saying that the gods don't exist?
I've come across atheists who have made this point many times, and it's disingenuous, it shows the lengths to which they will go simply in order to "win" the argument.
By the way, I don't believe in the gods either, because I just don't think they're real, that they actually exist. I am, however, open to the possibility, however remote that may be, of being wrong about this. So many insist on God's existence, and if they turn out to be correct after all, then I will have to admit to having been wrong about this, and change my mind."

[genericname85]

do you understand the difference between "not proven guilty" and "proven unguilty"?
the difference is in the first case, you just don't know if for example someone is a murderer in a particular case or not, hence you can't punish them. in the latter case, you know they definitely aren't the murderer. there's a huge difference.

god has not been proven to exist but has also not been proven to be unguilty of existing. therefore we must remain in that state where we can not accept the premise that god exits but we can also not accept the premise that god does not exist.

and claiming that "all atheists think like that" is of course bullshit. some atheist do believe that god doesn't exist. i personally am mostly indifferent towards the question whether there's a god or not. i'll treat god as unguilty of existing untill proven otherwise.

[Rachelspiks]

We're not in a courtroom here, we're not trying to determine the guilt or innocence of someone who has been convicted of a crime.
"We must remain in that state where we can not accept the premise that god exits but we can also not accept the premise that god does not exist."
So... you CANNOT accept the premise that God exists, for reasons not laid out, BUT you also cannot accept it's non-existence either. Well, God either exists or doesn't. There are no other options. To me this seems evasive, non-committal. You're not taking a position here.
"... and claiming that "all atheists think like that" is of course bullshit."
All? I DIDN'T make that claim! This is something else I've noticed many (NOT all) atheists often do - set up strawmen. If you're not even going to be honest here, then I have nothing more to say to you.

[genericname85]

i actually laid my reasons for not accepting that god exists. reason being: lack of proof. i thought i made that clear. i only mde the court example, cause that makes it more easily understandable.

maybe i can put it differently: i structure my reality in 2 realms. realm of possibility and realm of actuality. for me, only the realm of actuality matters. everything one can think of, is in the realm of possibility by default. but something can enter the realm of actuality, once it's been proven by means of measuring/demonstrating and by providing verifiable evidence. and i'm not denying god that possibility. i'm just saying, thatt god is in the realm of possibility, which for me doesn't matter.

[genericname85]

so for example if you claim, you have a billion dollar, that is in the realm of possibility to me. but when you show me your bank account balance and it shows that you own a billion dollar, that enters the realm of actuality. it's not that hard.

[snackthatsmilesback]

I've met atheists and religious people like this who will insist on complicated, specific definitions that they have one, invincible lock on defending. In my experience actually they don't want to argue at all, they just want you to admit they're right and change your beliefs and life accordingly. Either that or be really stupid when you disagree so they can demonstrate the superiority of their arguments to bystanders.

[Rachelspiks]

Exactly, and BOTH sides in this debate resort to these underhanded tactics. It's all about their precious egos, because if they truly cared about the truth they wouldn't so stubbornly insist they can't possibly be wrong, and that anyone who disagrees with their position is a (fill in the blank with whatever swearword or nasty name you can think of).

[CountessSarah]

Honestly, I'd block you for that too.

Don't try to tell other people what their position is. If I tell you I'm an atheist, and atheism is the lack of belief in a god, don't try to tell me that you know better what my position is.

When people try to make the 'Oh, you just /believe/ there's no god', point, what they're trying to do is make their theism and your atheism level, as if you both just have claims that are on equal footing. Which usually later culminates in yet another attempt from a theist to shift the burden of proof.
No - It is the theists job to make the claim, and I am unconvinced by that claim. They believe a god exists, I do not believe a god exists.

It's a subtle nuance, but an important one.

[Rachelspiks]

"If I tell you I'm an atheist, and atheism is the lack of belief in a god, don't try to tell me that you know better what my position is."
Even if your definition of the term is, A) not the dictionary definition, B) a definition that virtually no one recognises, and C) a definition that doesn't even make sense?

[Rachelspiks]

1. "... the lack of belief in any god..."
2. "... the belief there are no gods..."
What's the difference? There isn't one that matters, as I pointed out above. It's pure sophistry.

[CountessSarah]

'I believe a god does not exist' is a claim.
'I do not believe a god exists' is not.
That's the simplest way I can put it. It's a defence against theists shifting the burden of proof.

[Rachelspiks]

"I do not believe a God exists" is still a belief, and you no doubt have reasons why you don't believe a God exists. So what would they be? I have reasons for not believing certain things, like the existence of aliens. When asked, I will explain why.
The "burden of evidence" lies with anyone who makes a claim, whether it be a positive one (ex. 'God exists') or a negative one (ex. 'God does not exist'). Both positions need to be justified, and you cannot (as some have, maybe not you) claim that atheism is the default position that doesn't need to be defended.

[CountessSarah]

"I do not believe a god exists" is not a belief. And a non-belief doesn't need to be defended. Atheism is the default position. Someone who grew up in a cultural vacuum without a religion, and without the inclination to create one, would be an atheist.

[NathanDavis]

I'm agnostic because of my nature... first

and secondly because I do not like to argue factually about beliefs... and about stuff I have absolutely no idea at all

to me, many and A LOT of atheists are just very bitter people that are obsessed about something they clearly and entirely dislike, whether is the idea of gods or church, both... and possibly more... not all atheists of course

I had a few reasons to become someone like this but I did not... I just don't want to spend any amount of effort/time/energy being bitter, angry, resentful or anything like that, surely not going after cheap controversy and just for the sake of argument
but this is my personal approach to these things, I know many others have had it differently

[FoghornLeghorn99]

When it cause to God one thing is true:

We don't know what we don't know.

Just remember. The earth was flat until proven otherwise.


As for atheists, a true atheist won't fret about what others believe.

[Rachelspiks]

Your last sentence there - spot on! I don't believe in God, but if someone else wants to, who am I to tell them they can't, or shouldn't?

[IncognitoBandito]

I've always called myself Agnostic because I'm fully aware of the limitations of humanity's grasp on reality.

[Rachelspiks]

Agnostics are at least honest in their admission to simply not knowing the answer to the question of God's (or the gods, plural) existence. I usually think of myself that way as well, simply because I don't want to be associated with people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, 'YouTube' atheists, and all those others who simply want attention, to cause controversy, and to gain a following of mindless sheep.

[meetbadboy]

I'm an Atheist too, But this video is funny lol :

https://youtu.be/iAnwN4HCjNI

[Starman5]

because they are trying to make other people atheists like themselves

[Anonymous]

MATT IS A LOSER

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fH1uylyEnLU

[Rachelspiks]

God yes, a complete and utter loser. Hey, I think this is the very first time we actually agree on something! :)

[Erron_Black]

Ateists always funny. Always blocks.

[Rachelspiks]

Sssshh... don't say "always". They'll be deeply offended, call you nasty names, and say "Hey, not always! Just some of the time, and you're misrepresenting us, because I'm not like that".
I mean, I don't believe in gods either, but I'm not so arrogant as to think that I couldn't possibly be wrong about this. That's all I ask of them, that they consider the mere possibility that they're mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Goddess

[Rachelspiks]

You believe in goddesses? :)

[Opinion Owner]

You remember guy who called you Russian Goddess

[Rachelspiks]

I thinks so, but I don't remember who that was.

[Opinion Owner]

That person me lol

[Rachelspiks]

Well, I still don't know who you are, because you're anonymous.

[Opinion Owner]

See now

[Rachelspiks]

Yes, I see now :)

[Opinion Owner]

Yup don't know why I call you Goddess 😂 😂

[Rachelspiks]

That's easy to figure out. It's because you're obsessed with me.

[Opinion Owner]

Hmm i don't know
But i like when see your question and comment.

Hope you don't punish me 😂 😂