Can atheists prove that atheism is based on facts and not fantasy?

Tethered,

Is it wrong to have a belief that you can not prove?

I feel certain that Leprechauns are not real, yet I have no proof to support that. Is that wrong?

Technically, yes (it must have some basis)
Yes

Why is it wrong for me to believe that Leprechauns (or the tooth fairies) are not real?

You are valid to hold a belief they don't exist, given any knowledge partial proof that you know of, or knowledge of failed tests (i.e. what you would expect if they were not real).
...but if you don't claim to have absolute proof, then certainty is too extreme.

Sorry are these words too big for you?

You have 100% proof that leprauchans do not exist? Then i present the claim of invisible leprauchans. Sure i can't prove it, but you can't disprove it. Now you cannot assert there are no leprauchans, but that you have no reason to believe leprauchans exist.

The same reason we disbelieve a god: no reason to believe in him. Im not asserting he's not real and ill give sn example. Say theres a gumball machine and has lots of gumballs in it. Now conclusively, there can only be an even amount of gumballs or an odd amount. Now you come up with a claim that there are an odd amount and i have to look at that claim without counting the gumballs. Ultamitely, i don't know whether there are even or odd number of gumballs, so i am rejecting your claim that its odd because i dont know it to be true. I do not believe there isn't an odd amount, just that i have no reason to believe it's odd over even.

So hopefully this can conclude that rejecting a claim is not asserting that it's false, im simply saying that i have no reason to believe its true and i will even admit that it could be true. Now do you all understand?

Well, I do not believe in Leprechauns.

Or should I say, I have a disbelief in leprechauns?

Either way, I still have no proof the exist and I can not prove they do not exist.

The reason why I assert they do not exist is because:
1) No evidence of any kind that they exist. There is no physical evidence, no photographs and even if they were an alleged eye witness, I would doubt their veracity.

2) Also, I simply find the story line of leprechauns to be rooted in pure mythology. In other words, I think Leprechauns were nothing but stories told around a campfire to entertain children. I understand this is a conclusion I have made without any evidence.


Do you agree with me on this or not?

I think you may disbelieve in leprechauns, if your intent is to include definitions of leprechauns that are sufficiently wide in potential variety or vague... and believe there are no leprechauns (for other known definitions).

I agree that there is no primary evidence.
I agree with your reasons for not believing.

I will take that as a yes.

Now what if we changed the word Leprechaun to God, would you say that my reasons are the same as your reasons for your belief or lack of belief?

They bare a lot of similarity.

Can I get a yes or a no?

Atheism isn't based on anything, it is simply a lack of belief in gods.

Well, you are only 100 posts late, but glad you could make to the party. We have been playing musical chairs.

Atheists claim they have a lack of belief which I contend is still a belief.

I've only just made my account...
Anyways, there is no "bible" for atheists to base anything off of. They all have their own ideas, and none are associated with eachother.

I don't think anything in the Bible is relevant to this discussion. The Bible itself says that it is for the people of God (2Tim 3:17). I do not think that the Bible defines God in any way an unbeliever can understand. In fact, I think that part of the problem. Too many Christians have used the Bible to try to define God for unbelievers, and this is what is creating the impression that Chirstians believe in a God who is in "some old book".

The proper method is to find God first, and then start looking comparatively for the best method to respond to Him. What method (religion, denomination) is a separate consideration. For Christians, the method has a book underlying the method of response.

Yes

;taking post #127 and #128 into account.

Thankx brother, I understand what you are saying and my intention is not to say anything derogatory about God.

I understand that "atheists" are like snowflakes, no two are alike. At this point I am not sure if this thread is of any benefit. The last thing I would wish to do is be offensive to my fellow Christians. So for now I am going to stop posting my current train of thought. Tethered is guarded to the point it is hard to have a discussion like I would of hoped for. Thankx Tethered, I appreciated our discussion.

No, actually I think you may have misunderstood. I was trying to get us back to the topic at hand. Leprechauns to me are a tradition once committed to writing (as is much of the OT, and some say the gospels). I recognized veiled attacks against the Bible in the leprechaun parallel. The Bible is not the topic. Belief in God is. One can believe in God without being a Christian. You can be Moslem, Jewish, Mormon, maybe even Hindu (Braman), various froms of pagan (the demiurge), American Indian (the Great Spirit). An athiest, by definition is none of those things either. I think an atheist may well have to say something derogatory about God if he is to be honest about his reasoning, like the common "how could a good God permit so much evil".

You are so right, that 'cannot prove a negative' heuristic is actually limited to unfalsifiable claims. The same with 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.
In reality, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, IF we understand the situation well enough to expect evidence. And that's for most everyday realistic propositions, people tend not to propose unfalsifiable things in practice.