Why do so many Atheists introduce non-sequiturs into their arguments for...

[fistoffury]

...their beliefs? I have NEVER heard an argument made an Atheist that did not make some kind of leap to prove their point. Does any Atheist have an argument that actually methodically and carefully proves their beliefs? I think this important because Atheists say they reasons outside of faith for believing what they believe. I find nothing could be further from the truth. Does anyone know why they do this?
@ Randy P-ALL. Got it. Provide one that does not do that.
Atheism is the LACK of belief. How the hell do you think one methodically proves a lack of belief? That's like asking those who don't believe in Santa to prove their beliefs

My point exactly. You have no reasons nor proof, nor logic for believing there is no God. All you have is lack of evidence. To make the jump to being certain there is no God does not follow.

 

[Randy P]

Then you'll have no problem citing one or two of these leaps, right?

Edit: Provide one? Any of mine, for starters. But I don't make any attempt to "prove my beliefs". I don't get into silly arguments about trying to "prove" there is no God. I merely make the statement that there's no evidence. That's the beginning, and that's the end. Is that a leap?

If by "all arguments made by atheists" you really meant "attempts to prove God doesn't exist" then you should have made it clear that by "all arguments" you really meant "a very small fraction of arguments, those dealing with a particular topic".

Saying what you mean makes for clearer communication.

I also note you didn't actually come up with a cite. I'm so surprised.

 

[joe]

You would have to clarify more fully, but of course there are a multitude of non-sequitur arguments. Any large scientific theory is hardly a non-sequitur, and may be used as an argument by an Atheist. For example, as a counter-argument to intelligent design, there is a plethora of evidence to supported the much-related and contradicting opposing theory: natural selection and evolution.

Most Atheist beliefs are based on Science, or a lack of knowledge. A good scientist/Atheist's stance is that they do not believe something until you have failed to disprove it. No one has managed to find a weakness in evolution that is unaccounted for; however, they would not believe in something (God, or any other religious doctrine) without substantial empirical evidence or proof.

I hope that helps to show you that not all Atheistic arguments are non-sequiturs. I do love that phrase though.

 

[Solas5]

There are no arguments that support Atheism and so they introduce logical fallacies into every one of their "arguments."

 

[Street Shark]

I like how you compare proving there's no God to proving there's no Santa.
I also have to point out that there is a difference between a lack of belief in God and a belief in no God.

 

[lainiebsky]

Atheism is the LACK of belief. How the hell do you think one methodically proves a lack of belief? That's like asking those who don't believe in Santa to prove their beliefs.

You seem to have some bizarre ideas about atheism.

 

[M4gic 3y3]

to methodically and carefully prove my belief would take quite some time, are you truly willing to sit and listen attentively while i produce documents of facts that have been produced by hundreds of thousands of people who have come before me?

 

[Xartus]

Because nothing makes sense to somebody who doesn't understand anything anyway.

 

[Ricardo]

I do not use non-sequiturs and and I have seen very few atheists that do, but fundies cannot discuss half the topics here without using non-sequiturs - creation scientist - is the most used. And as many people have said you cite none that you claim, but then why would you break from the pack, no fundie yet has cited any fact that supported any claim they have ever had.

And yes, atheism is alack of belief, which is the opposite of belief. Belief is personal and you cannot show a fact supporting that just as an atheist cannot show a fact supporting non-belief. We have "reason" for believing there is no god, but by the very statement of belief we have "proof" which is our personal "belief" and we have logic on our side and with the total lack of evidence many of us say we cannot see how there is a god. We are not certain, but if you are "certain" then you have demonstrable proof, but as yet no one has come forward with it.

 

[SJReality]

I just got back from a hike in the woods. I saw Bigfoot. Invited him to shjare an energy bar and some bottled water and the Bigfoot accepted. We shared the small meal, he grunted a thank you and we parted ways.

If you do not believe that Bigfoot exists...then show me your proof. If you cannot prove Bigfoot exists then you need to keep your mouth shut and stop denying the existence of Bigfoot.

If the day ever comes when I am knocking on your door at 9 AM trying to convince you that Bigfoot exists...or if you are driving to work and see a BillBoard claiming Bigfoot exists and anyone who does not believe in Bigfoot is a damned fool...THEN you can ask me to prove my beliefs.

Are you smart enough to see how that works? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim...more so when those people expect other people to accept their belief without proof.

I do not care if you share my belief, or my lack of belief, in any god. I do not care if I am the only Atheist in existence. You (christians) on the other hand seem to be desperate to have me share your delusions and so you run around yelling and screaming in public and knocking on doors and putting up billboards...YOU REALLY want me to accept that your baby murdering god is real.

That is why YOU need to prove it does exists...Bring forth this baby killer you call a God or keep it inside of your homes and churches where such delusions belong.

 

[Peter A]

Because we dont have beliefs...thats what being an atheist means

 

[Michael]

Yeah because "lack of evidence" is completely illogical.