8 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I think it’s the opposite. They don’t believe in a god(s) because no rational logic nor evidence points to the existence of one. Theism is all about belief and faith. No scientific evidence supports the existence of a fantastical being beyond considerable doubt. Arguments from Dawson, Harris and many others are logic based, rational thinking. Arguments against them are emotional and faith based. 

You are right.

A person who doesn't believe in ghosts or Bigfoot isn't an "active" disbeliever. They don't believe in these things in the same way they don't believe in fairies or miracles or whatever. In the absence of any evidence there is no reason to believe in something. You don't have to "actively" disbelieve. You can express incredulity that so many people "believe" in something for which there is no rational or scientific basis, but that's just like not believing you can drive the ball 400 yards. 

The fact is, we live in a world where people "believe" in something for which no evidence exists. Not much hope of changing that.

1 minute ago, leftybutnotPM said:

but that's just like not believing you can drive the ball 400 yards. 

405.

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

  The second group is based just as strongly on unsubstantiated belief as those who DO believe in deities.  There is simply no way to prove that there are no deities, just as there is no way to absolutely prove their existence.  

 

That is plainly wrong by any scientific method. If you claim to believe in the existence of something without any evidence at all, that does not put you on equal footing with those who seek evidence for the existence of that thing. The expectation that believers provide evidence of the existence in deities is not an "unsubstantiated belief".

I have no problem with people "belivieng' in deities. That is fine. But if they want to convince people that what they believe in is an actual thing, they need to be prepared to say why. No evidence has ever existed to suggest that "god" exists that would past the most rudimentary scrutiny. Seems like a pretty decent start for a person to be an atheist.

The onus is on those making a claim of something existing to prove their point, not the reverse. 

They are all rights of the individual, conferred by God.  2A is an individual right and those who think otherwise deserve a solid dose of the 1st amendment.

2 hours ago, Rippy_72 said:

They are all rights of the individual, conferred by God.  

What?

20 minutes ago, leftybutnotPM said:

What?

Do you speak English?

Bill of Rights.

Did you go to school?

Just now, Rippy_72 said:

Do you speak English?

Bill of Rights.

Did you go to school?

I want you to explain what you mean when you say "conferred by God".

Read the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

Unalienable......unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

Endowed.....to provide with something freely or naturally

In other words, these are natural rights.  They cannot be taken away 

you

1 minute ago, Rippy_72 said:

Read the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."

You are using that as proof of the existence of something for which there is no evidence? Are you saying that you actually believe in God?

The formation of the United States is a separate thing

Just now, leftybutnotPM said:

you

You are using that as proof of the existence of something for which there is no evidence? Are you saying that you actually believe in God?

The formation of the United States is a separate thing

 

Of course, I believe in God.

Our country was formed thusly.

I don't want to engage you.  I don't like you

9 minutes ago, Rippy_72 said:

Of course, I believe in God.

Our country was formed thusly.

I don't want to engage you.  I don't like you

$100,000 to the charity of your choice if you can provide a SINGLE shred of evidence that would suggest that "god" exists.

Inconvenient, I know. I'm not sure why this question is so difficult to "engage" with.

It's an academic discussion, not a personal attack. I genuinely am interested in knowing what motivates such beliefs once one reaches a certain age and is capable of independent thought. It can't be based on observation.