For those who don't believe in Supernatural.

Your entire argument is invalidated by this one statement.

That's not necessarily an atheist's point of view. It is, however, a common and contemptible rhetorical trick of the god botherers who show up here to scorn the atheists. You are employing two fallacies. The most immediate and obvious one is a compositional fallacy which asserts that all atheists are identical in their thinking--it would run something like this: Every atheist i've ever discussed this subject with [which i suspect is precious few] says that there is no supernatural, this is the only world, there is no herafter and there is no god. Therefore, you conclude that this is the point of view of all atheists.

The second fallacy is inseparable from the first--you are employing a straw man. You describe an atheist's piont of view which you are prepared to argue against, rather than an actual point of view provided by an atheist here.

So let me provide you one. I don't know if there is a god, but i don't believe there is because i have never seen any evidence that this is so. I don't know if anything supernatural exists, but i don't believe anything supernatural exists because i have never seen any evidence that there is. There is far too little data to know if "there is only this world," leaving aside the entirely unsatisfactory use of the word "world," the meaning of which is too plastic to be useful in such a discussion. As for a "hereafter," once again, there is just far too little data to know--in the specific case of "the hereafter," there is no data at all. But i don't care if there is a god, or anything supernatural or a hereafter. If, upon my death, i learn that there is a hereafter, and that it is the realm of a god who is intent upon punishing me for not having sung his/her/its praises all my life, i don't want to associate with the petty-minded, childish son-of-a-bitch. I'll take my chances.

I said that i suspect that you discussed this with precious few atheists because in my experience, atheists don't have any interest in arguing with theists in real life. If you tell that you have in fact discussed this with many atheists, leaving aside the vagueness of "many," i'd consider you a liar, and point out that even if you have spoken to many atheists, you'd had to have spoken to millions upon millions of atheists to even make the feeble claim that what you write represents a majority point of view.

ok, just forget that for a while, forget he represented an atheist point of view depending on individual level. Just answer him the logic part of question. you say you don't believe in supernatural because you have not seen it, there is no evidence. Then why do you believe in logic ? can you see it ? saying your thinking is the evidence of logic existence. seriously, is that enough ? you are a prisoner of your own dilemma.

What the hell do you people think Science is?

Logic can actually be 'proven'. When we set out to prove a logical theory we turn to science which conducts a visible set of experiments with tangible outcomes and visible results. Science is the art of proving and updating Logic.

When people go to prove supernatural things it typically involves a couple of rednecks with a night-vision camera, an old house, and a bunch of 'OMG DID YOU SEE THAT?' on the History channel.

witchcraft

Straw man. I didn't say that i don't believe in the supernatural because i cannot see it--don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't believe in the supernatural because i don't know of any evidence for it. I don't know of any evidence that anything happens or has ever happened which cannot be explained by naturalistic principles. As for logic, the author shows precious little of it, and as was the case with his convenient description of an atheist, he is defining logic in a manner to suit his argument.

Hehehehehe . . .

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

-- Arthur C . Clarke

you can not prove to me that you are right, there are things an atheist will fail to answer. nor i can prove to you that i am right, i fail too. so where did the concept of Righteousness come from ?

I don't have a brief to prove anything to you, and frankly don't care. The concept of "righteousness" arises from people of religious conviction who operate under the delusion that their behavior and belief is superior to the behavior and belief of those around them, and that therefore they have the right to impose on others.

What i said was logic is unseen, still we know what it is. Similarly some of our fellow human beings (prophets, saints) underwent such experiences which one could only undergo when they enter the spiritual realm. When you say you are happy, how could i believe you are happy, your happiness is unseen, you explain your happiness, you may say"immensely happy", " very happy" etc.... but you can never prove it to me if i keep on saying that u r not happy. But i believe tht u r happy, because i know what happiness is. Similarly all prophets and saints confirmed each other, though there are differences in outlooks, but the message is one and same....... "THE GREAT UNSEEN"

why are you so pissed off ? why shouldn't we force Righteousness on people like you. when you dont know you shouldn't be rude on forums like these. if you dont have a brief or dont care to prove anything to me or someone another, stop replying to their posts. when you post a reply it means you oppose it, you are against it. if you are so pissed off to argue properly just shut down your computer and get a beer. chill out

Your question holds the answer. I believe in the existence of God, i believe in hereafter, but i can't prove its existence. I may use metaphors and allegories to prove my point but in the end i am dumbfound. All i can do is, believe it, notwithstanding the fact that i have no concrete proof to prove the existence of "unseen". In other words i am not right and my approach will not lead me to truth.

Now coming towards you(if you don't believe in God). As i can't prove the existence of God, similarly you can't disprove its existence. I can't prove but you can't disprove either. Like me what you can do is, deny it.

I am believing it and you denying it, both unable to prove or disprove, which in other words mean "both of us are not right and both are not following truth". But if both are wrong and both are following what is untrue, then where did the concept of rightness or truth come from?

You're once again defining me in terms convenient to your argument. I've not denied that there is a god. I've simply said that i don't believe that there is. There is nothing for me to disprove. If you assert that there is a god, you have the burden of proof, i am not obliged to disprove anything. That argument suffers from the problem which besets all theistic "logic"--this is not a case of you having looked at the cosmos and our little corner of it, and come to the conclusion that a god exists. You are not the first person to propose that a god exists. You are defending a position based upon and a priori assumption that the existence of a god is possible. I've not said it's impossible, i'm just saying that i don't believe it. I have absolutely no burden of proof. As for this:



The final clause is a non sequitur. It also suffers from an assumption of an external source, in this case, for "rightness and truth." This is equivalent to the theists who attempt to insist that atheists can't be moral because they have no god telling them what is right and what is wrong.

When i say 2+2=4, you believe me, but when i say 2+2=5, you don't believe me, in other words you deny the authenticity of my claim. Similarly there is no way between. There is only one way to truth, fact. And you are not sure to follow which way, the way of those who believe or the way of those who don't. Then why you indulge in such questions if you are indifferent to the fact that whether God exists or not? Because you are in search of an answer, as i am in for, but still i believe in God. (Plz, be frank, aren't you in search for an answer that whether God exists or not, though you are not sure whether God exists or not? be good and frank as far as this question is concerned).

No, i am not in a search for whether or not god exists. I consider the question to be an irrelevance. Unless and until someone can come up with a plausible and demonstrable definition of god, i see no reason to entertain the question at all.

And sorry for thing which might have hurt you. I didn't define you in terms convenient to my argument. I didn't even know you and have never meet you, so how am i supposed to make an assessment of you? Frankly speaking, i have never met an atheist my whole life, and don't know much about them except, that they deny the existence of God and life-after. That's why i raised such questions.

Then why are you arguing with me or with anybody else about whether God exists or not? Why are you glued to your seat, waiting for my questions to be answered by you? If you are indifferent to existence or nonexistence of God, why at all you are here chatting with me. Because you are in search of a "plausible and demonstrable definition of god". Am i wrong?

OK, first, there is nothing for you to apologize for. You have done me no harm, and this is an online forum--we can exchange our ideas, but we can't hurt one another.

You have defined atheists and their points of view in a manner convenient to your argument. For example, you say that atheists don't belive in god or an afterlife. For some atheists, that would be true. For others, such as me, that's not it at all. As i've said, i don't know if a god exists, but i don't believe it, and i don't care. I've also said that i don't know if there is an afterlife, and that that is something for which no one can provide any data--no one knows that there is an afterlife, regardless of what they believe.

I suggest that to start, you read this Wikipedia article on atheism (clickity-click!). There are strong athests and weak atheist (although i dislike those terms as being pejorative). All atheists are weak atheists in that they don't believe that a god exists. But some atheists are also strong atheists in that they assert that no god exists, and the most extreme examples of this are those atheists who assert that a god cannot possibly exist. By these definitions, i am a weak atheist. A strong atheist who states that no god exists or can exist assumes a burden of proof. A weak atheist, who mearly says "I don't believe that" does not assume any burden of proof.

I highly recommend that you read the Wikipedia article. Most of the "religion wars" in online fora such as this arise because the religiously devout come here assuming that all atheists are strong atheists and either demanding proof that there is no god, or atheists can't be correct because they, the theists, assert that atheists cannot disprove god.