My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

Not open for further replies.
Yes you lack my claim.
No, I lack your belief.
I don't make your claim, but I lack your belief.
Your belief is in God.
Hence I lack belief in God.
Where in this is the implication that God exists?
Your belief exists, that much is patently true, accepted, undisputed.
But where in my lack of belief in God is there any implication that God exists?
Answer: there isn't any.
Without mine, or any theist claim, you have nothing to lack. Hence your lack of belief in God, is a lack of my belief in God, because for you, there is no God to lack a belief in.
Yes, I lack your belief in God.
Your belief is in God.
I lack your belief.
I thus lack belief in God.

It's really not difficult, Jan.
And you wonder why people think you're nothing but a troll. :rolleyes:

That's what I said. You lack the belief that I have, because there is no God as far as you're aware. It's not a mantra, it's a fact. That's why you're atheist.
I am atheist because I lack belief in God.
It's no more difficult than that.
You can try to twist it to fit your previous assertions through the trollish semantic manure you're spreading, but you can't avoid the issue: atheists are such because they lack belief in God, and the only thing this implies exists is the belief in God.
It does not, irrespective of your fallacious reasoning, imply that God exists.

Now please, do everyone a favour and just quit while you're behind... before you're disqualified.
And Jan is sure not doing a favour for theists. We have always known the fallacious logic that goes into people "knowing" about unknowable matters.

Jan is (and has been since the beginning) demonstrating for all to see that there is a strong association between the "belief equals knowledge" crowd and a distinct paucity of critical thinking, logic and good-faith communication. He is providing extant (if specious) evidence for our observations.
Thanks for making my point.

You just repeat the same silly mantra over and over, like a cultist.

It's not a mantra. It's a fact. God does not exist as far as you're aware.

By doing so, you demonstrate that you are either unwilling, or unable, to engage in a discussion in good faith.

I very willing and able to engage in this discussion.

There is nothing stopping you from simply repeating your mantras over and over, and so you do so because you don't know any better.

It's not a mantra. It's a fact.
Does God exist as far as you're aware? No.
It's fundamental.

For the record (i.e. anyone who subscribes to critical thinking), I (and almost everyone else) have never asserted God does not exist, simply that I don't grant it does.

This isn't what you assert. It is about the fact that God does not exist as far as you're aware, regardless of what you assert.
Anything you do assert about God, or theism. Is from the point of view that God does not exist as far as you're aware.
There's nothing cultish about that.

Our argument has been simply that you cannot know it does exist, simply because you feel it in your heart.

And my argument is, anything you say about God, or theists, is from the point of view that God does not exist. So when you remark that God is feeling in my heart, you know nothing about God. But you wish to project that on to me, or any theist who believes in God.

Another example where Jan simply ignores anything he doesn't like to hear, and goes on as before like a scratched record.

Just reinforcing the fact that you currently don't know anything about God, because as far as you're aware, there is no God.
That is why you are an atheist.

Last edited:
Based on the fact that you lot have produced no evidence for them. I won't ask you to embarrass yourself again by repeating a request for evidence.

You said, there is no God.
Then you say, you didn't say that.
You don't know whether you're coming or going. Do you?

No one can know what other people's beliefs are without asking and being told. In your case, there is also the problem of your inconsistency and refusal to clarify various muddles, strawmen, and contradictions. Like this one:

I'm very clear in what I say.
And what's more, I know that you know I'm very clear in what I say.
You're an atheist. You're not stupid by any stretch of the imagination.

You are often dishonest, and post in bad faith. Many people have noticed that.

I challenge you to show where I have actually been dishonest, as opposed to empty accusations of dishonesty.
That's why I repeat my points, and keep them simple.

Namely, a particular category or kind of belief.

Yes. God is only the subject matter, because there is no God as far as you're aware.
If' I'm wrong. Then God does exist as far as you're aware.

Last edited:
Prove any god or gods exist. You can't do this, so you're just babbling inanely.

It doesn't matter whether I can prove God exists, plus, it's not the point.
As much as God doesn't exist for you, God Is, for me.
What you're attempting to maintain, is that your position is correct, whereas mine is incorrect.
But you have no way knowing that. You can only see things from your point of view.

God does not exist as far as you're aware.
Again we see the repetition of a statement made dozens and dozens of times. There is no new information in this discussion. No elaboration, no clarification. No argument.

But it can still serve a useful purpose as a peri-mortem examination into the mind of someone who believes that repeating something dozens and dozens of times makes it somehow less fallacious. An extant example of the Proof by Assertion fallacy.

Fallacy: Proof by assertion – a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction;

And notice that there is no attempt to assert his own case anymore, nor even the counterargument presented; he is simply attempting to weaken the opposing argument by way of an ad Hom (he attacks the people (atheists) making the argument, rather than the argument itself.)

His continued assertion that we are speaking from an atheist perspective - thus the fallacious implication that the arguer's perspective somehow weakens the argument itself - is textbook ad Hom. (It's less effort to dismiss a person than a good argument.)

Fallacy type: Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Fallacy subtype: Traitorous critic fallacy – a subtype of ad hominem where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism
Last edited:
You can request evidence from thesist but you can not make them produce it

Michael Oct 2017

I'm very clear in what I say.
Like this?
Yes. God is only the subject matter, because there is no God as far as you're aware.
If' I'm wrong. Then God does exist as far as you're aware.
This comes after you have repeatedly denied implying that your God exists, or that the existence of your God is legitimate question. It is a muddle, and that is increasingly visible as a tactic of yours - you are posting stuff that takes paragraphs to unravel, and to no purpose.

You contradict yourself in sequence, and you argue in circles, and you repeat falsehoods, and you post deflecting questions and assertions in bad faith, and you attack the person, and you ignore what you cannot deal with in those ways. That's all clear, yes.
I challenge you to show where I have actually been dishonest, as opposed to empty accusations of dishonesty.
I have several times, over the time here, quoted you and labeled the quote an example of your dishonesty. So have other people. So that's been done, see? We're long past that.
Faster than a speeding concept
More powerful than a notion
Able to leap over logic in a single bound
Look. Inside the brain. It’s a thought
It’s a deduction
It’s Superthesist
Yes, it’s Superthesist, strange visitor from another world who came to Sciforum with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men
Superthesist, who can change the course of mighty threads bend your will with his bare retoric
And who, disguised as Repeat A Mantra mild-mannered thesist for a great 2,000 year old book fights a never ending battle for belief, faith and the Conviction way

Sorry Superman

Jan Ardena:

If, as you claim, you're posting in good faith, then why haven't you responded to any of these substantive posts?

... especially the first one, in which I set out what I believe your position is, so that you can clarify if necessary.

Is it because it takes less effort to repeat one-line mantras than to respond to a detailed analysis and response to what you have written? Is it because you don't want to think about whether you own position is sustainable?
Your claim is that the term "atheist" implies that "God IS".

If taken as "a lack of belief in God", yes.
If taken as "a lack in a belief of positive assertions about God". Then God does not exist as far as the atheist is aware.

Hence you refuse to discuss whether God exists, and think it is beside the point. Instead you simply hold that "God IS", where "IS" is defined in rather vague terms.

It's a matter of perspective.

As far as I can tell, by "God IS", you mean, essentially, that God is everything.

I've explained what Iean on several occasions.

You say that atheists, in effect, deny the "obvious" IS-ness of God. From your perspective, I imagine it feels strange to come across people who see that things exist, and yet apparently fail to realise that God is behind everything. They must be in denial, or else deliberately choosing to reject God.

Like I said it's already been explained. You analysis of it, is much like one of you famous summation. Packed full with misinformation.

Bigfoot does not exist, then apparently the Jan-default position is that Bigfoot

Is Big foot categorised as an object?

To sum up, you insist that atheism is a denial or rejection of God, conscious or unconscious, regardless of anything atheists have to say about the matter.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, because God does does not exist as far as they are aware.
Now you see the reason for my repetitiveness. To counter your obfuscation.

Would that be a fair summary?

Obviously not. :rolleyes:

Is Big foot categorised as an object?
Sometimes. In several different ways, depending on who's doing it.

But that's irrelevant - unless you are trying to blow smoke over your inability to make sense of your various existence claims with respect to your particular God. You were trying to deflect into some irrelevance about "objects" earlier - trying a rerun?
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, because God does does not exist as far as they are aware.
That's not why.
Not open for further replies.