Atheists: Why can't you state an Opinion?

'I think he's imaginary' fits better. I was starting to laugh but then i read though all of that. Mostly new atheists are the ones that say that not realizing that a god is still possible and can't be proven or disproven by man.

I often say I don't believe because there's zero evidence for it's existence.

It's quite obvious that I'm giving my opinion with a little bit of extra info about how I reached that conclusion. They words aren't mutually exclusive.

What use is an opinion without reasoning behind it?

Added

"It's just that deists and Christians who post say: "I believe". Faith . Never: " God exists, it's fact, everyone knows it. ". That's all my beef is about."

That's either a bold faced lie or you're living with you're head in the sand. I hear it proclaimed every day when out and about. I see it everyday when out and about and on the web. I can link you to plenty of examples of them saying they KNOW God is real, it's a fact, blah blah blah, if you really want. I won't even have to look through old posts. Just wait for any new answers from the majority of theists.

"Plus faith is belief. To say it needs facts is denying faith."

Nope, saying I can't believe without evidence is explaining the limits of my faith. I only have faith in that which can be detected, measured, and demonstrated.

1. "You people" just sounds bad.

2. Using the term "always" sounds absurd and is flat out incorrect.

3. Why are gods typically referred to as he/him?

4. Many atheists would not say "I don't believe in god..." There are many 'gods' concepts out there and I do not believe in a single one of them. So if anything it would be " I don't believe in deities because they are imaginary."

5. I usually find that atheists have a large amount of 'links' to back up there conclusions. There may refer to science, lack of evidence/proof, inconsistencies within religions, etc. Actually find it quite the opposite, that theists often have no (or little) links to back up their conclusions.

6. Also, this question is an opinion/conclusion with absolutely no 'links to back you up', so it is a bit ironic.

7. Personally, I do not believe that any deity exists due to a lack of evidence.

:D

So do I also have to say I believe unicorns are not real or I believe wizards and Harry potter is just a story?

Of what about I believe thor and odin are not real?

We do have a fair bit of knowledge and scientific information about how the universe is and what it contains and how things came to be.

So, I feel it is perfectly okay to say I do not believe in any gods because they are imaginary and I know there is no god, in the same way as I can say I know there are no unicorns, vampires or zeus.

If I can say it for one imaginary creature, why not another?

Why is it Ok to say I know no unicorns or thor does not exist but not to say I know no god exists?

Sorry but its the same.

we have every right to make the conclusion and to state the opinion that we know there are no gods, because its based on the facts and evidence at hand., of which there is quite a lot.

Where as there is none at all for any god, so really anyone saying I believe there is a god, is forming a belief and an opinion in the face of the evidence available and making irrational conclusions.

“I don’t believe in god” IS a statement of opinion, which is justified with “because he’s imaginary.” So, in posing your own question, you’ve shown it to be invalid. Furthermore, for every opinion, a “Why” or justification is attached to it. Just because one is not implicitly stated, does not mean one is not implied. So, in debate or discussion it does little good to simply offer an opinion because the next question inevitably is “why.” For an opinion to hold any weight, there needs to be a justification, otherwise it is simply an uninformed opinion. By giving the justification we can now judge the validity of this opinion.

As for citing sources and providing links to back up statements, you have every right to question ones statements of justification, but it is unrealistic to demand sources out front. Can you imagine what conversation would be like if after every statement we stopped to cite sources? For example: you make a claim about “Most people” when you say, “Most have no trouble with that.” Where is your source? Link us to your statistical data and research that will show this majority you speak of. Or “ 99.99% of atheists posting give this "conclusion". .. Citation needed. Or “it's fact, everyone knows it.” Now you have to link us to the supporting facts AND the studies that show that “everyone” knows the single fact in question. (For the record, “I believe in god” is often justified by some statement of fact that god exists. Many will even profess it as a statement of fact that “god exists.”)

See how bogged down conversation can get had you stopped to provide us all with the necessary data that is required to back up your claims? So, before you complain about others offering “conclusions” without citing sources, you’d be wise to provide necessary sources yourself… that is unless you hold a double standard.

We are told god is supernatural yes? That means, by definition of the word supernatural, he is outside of space and time, since there is no frame of reference for that then it lies only within the realm of imagination. Just because we can imagine something does not mean that it has any basis in fact or reality. That sir is a fact, not an opinion, look at what you are arguing and you will see it is the religious who claim fact while having nothing more then opinion. I at least know the definitions of words and have not convinced myself that something that can not be seen, tested, measured or shown in nature is real. You believe on faith and the definition of faith is what again?

And by the way I tolerate others views as long as they keep those views away from my life and my choices, but unfortunately that isn't what we get, just look at the republican presidential candidates. I'll keep speaking up until those views of yours aren't used as a weapon in the voting booth.

I believe a garden is better for having a model railway in it.

I can follow that up if necessary, as with my beliefs in other areas.

I hardly plucked them out of the air at random

And my beliefs are not made valid or right by my holding them (however sincerely, firmly or vehemently)

That depends entirely on my underlying reasoning being valid.

If views are presented on the "I believe..."or "It is my opinion that..." level, that's fine all round.

And is good for mutual acceptance and tolerance, provided the same understanding about "only my belief/opinion" is held on both sides.

But to get anywhere in discussion there's little value in stopping there.

you said the same thing in two lines. does it matter the format? most actually have the most trouble with imaginary.

how would i post a link telling you god doesn't exist?

how hard is it post a link if your not an atheist. so many false claims pulled out of the air for better words, without a link or a source ever.

I can only report to you what I BELIEVE.

I BELIEVE there are no supernatural beings.

I am INCAPABLE of believing in anything supernatural.

You may consider that either an opinion or a conclusion as you wish. Or you can call me a liar.

But your consideration or accusation does not change the fact of my disbelief.

There are no "links" to my core belief. No evidence that I do not lie.

.

No one wastes time saying "I Believe unicorns are imaginary", we just say "I don't believe in unicorns......because they're imaginary."

Same with faeries, thor, apollo, bigfoot. No one describes themselves as being agnostic about faeries, we simply say they are non-existent even though there is no proof of that claim.

disbelieving in God is easy, there is quite a bit of evidence to discredit the bible. Only disbelief in god would an opinion be unsupported.