Atheism isn't a belief?

God is assumed not to exist because there's ample evidence that it's a purely imaginary concept; and it's also a useless explanation, as it has absolutely no predictive powers whatsoever. Someone tells me, "There's a dragon in your yard!" I respond, "Cool, I always wanted to see a dragon." I go out and look. No dragon.
Then they say, "Oh, he's now in the woods behind your house." I go look. No dragon.
Then they say, "He's now three houses down." I go look. Still no dragon.
Then they say, "Oh, he's now invisible... and in Cleveland."I give up.The defeatist attitude is warranted, as it's obvious that the person making the assertions is just making shit up.

Thus, you had no choice in writing that. And I have no choice in writing this. And, the predetermined effect of my being faced with determinism is:Screw this -- I'm gonna do something else.

Most things are. Humans ain't too bright. That would negate your 'first cause', since you're positing the cause of the cause. It also isn't reasonable to presume a reason, as accidents happen. It was that presumption that resulted in that false conclusion in the first place. The difference between humans and chimps or dolphins ain't that much.
Let's see... humans, pound for pound, are just about the weakest animal on the planet, with mediocre eyesight and hearing, and a practically nonexistent sense of smell. Humans are also on one planet circling one star in a galaxy of 100,000,000,000 stars, in a universe with 100,000,000,000 galaxies. Or it's random, or humans are just deluding themselves.
As the human capacity for self-delusion is well-documented, this is the most probable. As humans can't agree on God's characteristics, this brings the probability that they have a singular, external source down to just about zero.

If you had a choice, that screws with everything that follows. If that was the case, my response wouldn't have been determined 13.7 billion years ago; it would've been determined as soon as you made your choice, as your choice affected the input that I mechanistically responded to.

IOW, belief in God is a prerequisite for a belief in God.

...Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves.

BLASPHEMY!!From the Book of Pre-Scriptures, chapter 4:1. The Pink Unicorn, holding all potential within Herself, did plan out the general course of the reality which seemed best to Her sense of humor; and, since Surprise is a vital ingredient of Fun, did She decide that the others She created to share Her Fun should be unable to perceive Her; all the better to Surprise them, and to amuse Herself.2. In fairness to the others She would create, did She decide that they also would be able to Surprise Her occasionally; and thus did She conceive intelligence, and free will, and the Sense of Humor.3. Because of Her realization that pratfalls are a vital ingredient of Humor, did She create the Patsy; and to the Patsy did She give all the many varieties of Shitheadedness. Stupidity and stubborness, misery and pain, dullness, officiousness, greed, and fear- all these evils did She bestow upon the Patsy, like unto a "kick me" sign pinned upon its back for the lifetime of the universe which She would soon create.4. In the interest of fairness, did She divide the shitheadedness of the Patsy into divers forms, so that no one form did for ever and always embody the totality of shitheadedness; from Her humor, and Her fairness, were the avatars of the Patsy created.5. Thus came to be such minions of malaise as the Visible Brown Unicorn, and the Purple Oyster of Doom; for it is Her decision that purple is usually a color for shitheads, and yea verily so is brown.

As for the 'how', you have 'magical poofing', which is the same as saying, "He did it somehow."
As for the 'why', you have any of a near-infinite number of possible reasons from which to choose.Such a malleable God will fit into any gap. It should never be placed into any gap, though; as doing so removes the impetus for finding what is really in there. It's the end to all inquiry -- an arbitrary stopping point. "It fits. There, I'm done."No thanks. I'll just scoop out your God and continue, as I want to find what is really there. Only after every possible solid explanation has been tried and failed is one of the permutations of 'God' acceptable, as we'd be left with only nonfalsifiable hypotheses, so one is just as good as any other. (Given equal complexity)

In order for it to be 'from the heart', belief is a prerequisite.
If you can manage to make a heartfelt call to Superman, I'll stand corrected. To whom?
To those who don't believe, that 'him' only points to various concepts. It doesn't point to any actual person. And even with proper nouns/pronouns that refer to an actual person, a response from a concept certainly can't be trusted to be the same as from the actual person, or coming from them at all. I mean, if you ask me to offer myself to Jennifer Love Hewett, and I use my imaginary one, I'll get some pretty nice results. Now, as 'Jennifer Love Hewett' also refers to an actual person, I could figure out a way to offer myself to that one (I know who it refers to), but the results would likely be completely different. The psychological parasite cannot gain a foothold with the BS detector in place.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-18-2005 02:42 PM

Except you've just demonstrated that you're an IPUist, as you must believe in her to believe she thinks you're a shithead. So, you're just an IPUist who hates the IPU (mhhnbs).

Saying, "I felt something," would not be irrational, as it would be true. Identifying the source of that feeling as an external entity, with no evidence that such an external entity exists, would be irrational; as it's a near-certainty that that feeling was internally-generated. The evidence of such is that as soon as you gain any distance from the common sources that are various holy books, what is purported to have been 'revealed' differs widely. That's evidence that these 'revelations' are not coming from a common source, as the hallmark of a common source is commonality. (Duh)

The BS detector and subsequent filter merely rejects BS. The only 'want' is to allow no BS through. If God is BS, then no, God is not wanted. If God is shown to be not BS, he'll make it through just fine. You're not a psychological parasite. You just appear to be infected with one, as one of the indications of infection is the spewing of BS.
I forgive you for the spewage, though. It's not like you can help it.

Your puzzle has pieces with edges made out of soft clay. You can put them together however the heck you want to, with only 'Goddidit' holding them together.That's no fun. I certainly hope I never run out of things to explore. The only God I own is the one I'm typing on.
Control Panel --> Network --> Identification --> Computer Name: God.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-18-2005 04:11 PM

No, as that would be convincing someone that something is not false when they already believe it to be true; and 'not false' is inherent in 'true'. If someone believes that X is true, they don't have to be convinced that it's not false, as they already believe that too. Doesn't bother me. I've tested the hell out of the thought processes used to reach my conclusions, and been unable to find any weakness. Unsurprisingly, nobody else has managed to put a dent in them either.
If there was any disparagement, it would only say something about you -- namely, that you have no clue as to what you're up against. So don't worry about it. What happened? Close call? Mid-life crisis?Anyway, you might have cheered, but I don't. I'm not here to champion a position -- I'm here to rip apart anyone who dares to think that their methodology is better than mine.
Haven't yet come across one that I can't fail. I simply have the proven performance of my methodology, so an extraordinarily strong conviction that it works is justified.
As for the conclusions -- I couldn't care less.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-19-2005 01:10 AM

I wasn't asserting that.
True = not false. Therefore, if someone believes that X is true, nobody can make them believe that X is not false, as they already believe that. I wouldn't call them prerequisites, as none is required for a belief in Santa. Now, longing doesn't count, as that just leads to searching for anything that can fill the hole, and if an imaginary god fits, it'll be used. (and remember, an imaginary god cannot be differentiated from an actual one.) Now, hope and despair will work. Hitting rock bottom with despair, dropping the baggage, and the resultant highly elevated mood would seem to work best, as that's a severe change that can be misattributed to an external entity. So, if one has been exposed to the God-concept, that can be used as an explanation, and a belief in God can be gained that way. Yup. Just straight-up fear; and if you can't go running to your daddy, or your daddy is inadequate, a big sky daddy will fit the bill.I never asserted that belief is a prerequisite for belief. You did. I merely translated it to point out the flaw. Yes, it is; as it can be restated as, "God, if you are listening..."
Even, "God, if you exist...," assumes the existence of God.