Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "

[Shushersbedamned]

First tell me what you think a "true atheist" is.

An atheist that does not believe in a higher being.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An atheist that does not believe in a higher being.

Then there are countless examples:

atheist philosophers - Google Search

Bertrand Russel may be the most famous you will see in that search.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

First tell me what you think a "true atheist" is.

As I said, your definition appears to be incorrect. I probably could show you examples, but if your definition is wrong then you will simply deny that they are atheists.

I would still appreciate you hold on to it. And now I would also appreciate your definition and the reason it is more correct than mine.

 

[Trailblazer]

We don't like it, for a variety of reasons. Principally because it's not actual, unbiased evidence.

Sorry to say that God does not operate that way... God does not want to PROVE He exists to us... He wants us to prove He exists to ourselves. God wants us to look at the evidence He provides and make our own decision. Once we have verified the evidence for ourselves then we know God exists.

In other words? For this "evidence" to actually BE "evidence" one has to have faith... first.

And once you have faith-- you can literally believe in anything at all, regardless...

Therefore? You don't actually have evidence.

No, you do not have faith first. You look at the evidence first. Then once you are certain that the evidence is from God, there is no more need for faith, because you know God exists.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Then there are countless examples:

atheist philosophers - Google Search

Bertrand Russel may be the most famous you will see in that search.

Bertrand Russell made a lot of theories about god and it's existence but is not in the end an atheist.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because believers believe first. And once they take that step? They really don't need actual "evidence"...

No, believers do not believe first, not unless they are foolish. They look at the evidence first, and then they believe if the evidence is sufficient for them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bertrand Russell made a lot of theories about god and it's existence but is not in the end an atheist.

Really? I would like to see some evidence that supports that claim. Meanwhile there are countless others in that list. I am betting that you will contradict your own "definition".

 

[Shushersbedamned]

No, believers do not believe first, not unless they are foolish. They look at the evidence first, and then they believe if the evidence is sufficient for them.

The human mind creates the belief as soon as any stimulation is given.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Really? I would like to see some evidence that supports that claim. Meanwhile there are countless others in that list. I am betting that you will contradict your own "definition".

Just answer the questions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Atheists tend to be rational thinkers, theists . . . not so much.

That is a gross generalization.
Do you have any evidence to back that up, or is it just a personal opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just answer the questions.

I answered your question. Now it is your turn.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The evidence God provides is insufficient for atheists, but it is sufficient for beleivers... Why is that?

Maybe that would be an interesting subject for a new thread. On that thread one might ask why the existence of God should be verifiable. Why does God owe us that?

I certainly can't speak for theists, but when I've discussed evidence with believers I come to the conclusion that believers have a far lower threshold for what they consider to be reliable evidence than I do. Some believers tell me that they consider the bible to be evidence for God. However, I find nothing in the bible that leads me to believe that it is evidence for God, in the exact same way that I haven't read anything in the Hindu Vedas that leads me to believe that Vishnu is real, or anything I've read in the Koran that leads me to believe that the Muslim's god is real. If you happen to have what you consider to be sufficient evidence for God, I'm always open to hearing it and letting you know if it's sufficient for me as well. If not, I'll let you know why I don't consider it to be reliable evidence.

Personally I don't think that people should believe anything without verifiable evidence that it is true. That's why I don't believe in ghosts or magical fairies, or any of the other numerous fantastical things that some people are willing to believe in without verifiable evidence. It's just like if you don't believe in magical fairies, because you have never been presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that they are real. Why is the evidence insufficient for you, but it is sufficient for those who believe in magical fairies? I suspect that your answer would be that anyone who believes in magical fairies has a much lower threshold for what they consider to be reliable evidence than you do.

If there actually is a god, I'm not saying that this god 'owes' me verifiable evidence that god exists. However, if this god wants me to believe that god exists then god had better be prepared to provide some verifiable evidence for that reality. Again, it's like me asking you why magical fairies owe you evidence for their existence. No one said they do. But if the magical fairies want you to believe in them, they're going to have to offer you evidence for their existence first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a gross generalization.
Do you have any evidence to back that up, or is it just a personal opinion?

Yes, but grossly true. There are some irrational atheists, and maybe even a few rational theists. It is an observation, but I am willing to be shown to be wrong. What theists believe due to reliable evidence?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I answered your question. Now it is your turn.

You didn't define a real atheist, tell me your definiton, why it is more correct than mine and the philosophers.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Whatever the stance they have whether it is 'Agnostic Atheism' or 'Gnostic Atheism' or any point in between them, it remains a belief in relation to "God doesn't exist" (and or "God exists"), none of them make science. Right, please?
Regards

Have you ever said to anyone 'I don't believe you'? If you have, what did you mean by that?

 

[Trailblazer]

The human mind creates the belief as soon as any stimulation is given.

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't define a real atheist, tell me your definiton, why it is more correct than mine and the philosophers.

You used the phrase. I asked you to define one and then I found atheists that met your definition. Once again, I did not need to define the term since I went with the definition that you used.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I don't know what you mean by that.

As soon as anything is felt with the senses and thoughts start flowing the mind creates beliefs

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's the way the human mind works.

It does not matter what you call evidence. I say it is not necessarily real no matter how it fits your perception of reality.

You are perfectly welcome to ignore the shared perception of reality that most of us have. Hope you have fun with that.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

You used the phrase. I asked you to define one and then I found atheists that met your definition. Once again, I did not need to define the term since I went with the definition that you used.

You also called my definition wrong - so in order to not seem foolish you do need to define and explain.