Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Subduction Zone]

Ok perhaps you can prove why you think I do not understand it and why you think not believing in God or the existance of God or lack of belief is not a belief?

I will answer with a simple question:

Is not playing football a sport?

 

[ChristineM]

Not really an athiest or athiesm according to the Oxford dictionary which is the same as many other dictionary definitions is disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. So if someone does not believe in the existence of God or gods is still a belief just the same as someone that believes in God is a belief. Now both do not have evidence for their belief so the only conclusion is that both beliefs are not based on evidence therefore their beliefs are based on faith (no evidence; unproven) IMO.

I lack belief in pink unicorns, do i need to prove they dont exist?

Actually there is evidence that certain aspects of god cannot exist but you will refuse them as evidence

 

[3rdAngel]

I will answer with a simple question:

Is not playing football a sport?

Sorry it does not answer the question I asked you at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does this relate to you when you have already told me you do not believe in God or the existence of God? This is a belief is it not?

Your statement about me is incorrect. You should not have used both clauses. You appear to have a problem understanding context at times. In the dictionary definition one could "lack a belief in God". Or one could "believe that God does not exist". Those are two separate issues. Your sentence implies both.

 

[3rdAngel]

Actually there is evidence that certain aspects of god cannot exist but you will refuse them as evidence

Just as there is evidence for certain aspect that God can exist which you also refuse to believe because it does not suit your faith (athiesm).

 

[3rdAngel]

Your statement about me is incorrect. You should not have used both clauses. You appear to have a problem understanding context at times. In the dictionary definition one could "lack a belief in God". Or one could "believe that God does not exist". Those are two separate issues. Your sentence implies both.

What statement about you is not correct? You have been shown on multiple occasions in many threads now in regards to your problems with context. Seems you have not learn't your lessons in this regard .

 

[icehorse]

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

I allow for the ever-so-slight chance that there is / are god(s). I also allow for the even remoter chance that they are anything at all like what religious people claim they are.

But if - in the exceedingly off chance - there is an Abrahamic god, then he's a totally reprehensible creature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I lack belief in pink unicorns, do i need to prove they dont exist?

Actually there is evidence that certain aspects of god cannot exist but you will refuse them as evidence

Yes, you do.

Seriously, his version of God can probably be proven not to exist, but your final statement appears to be sadly correct.

 

[3rdAngel]

I allow for the ever-so-slight chance that there is / are god(s). I also allow for the even remoter chance that they are anything at all like what religious people claim they are.

Hi Ice, thanks for sharng your view.

But if - in the exceedingly off chance - there is an Abrahamic god, then he's a totally reprehensible creature.

Pehaps that is a view because you do not understand the scriptures IMO.

Thanks for sharing though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What statement about you is not correct? You have been shown on multiple occasions in many threads now in regards to your problems with context. Seems you have not learn't your lessons in this regard .

the implication that I have an active belief that God does jot exist.

Now your version of God can probably be shown not to exist, but you would have to clearly define it first.

 

[icehorse]

Just as there is evidence for certain aspect that God can exist which you also refuse to believe because it does not suit your faith (athiesm).

We could stretch definitions a bit. I might agree that because I put a high value on repeatable, reliable evidence, I have "faith" that I don't have to believe in ANYTHING that lacks evidence. So I can put "god" and pink unicorns in the same category. But to be fair, this is really more about valuing evidence.

 

[3rdAngel]

the implication that I have an active belief that God does jot exist.
Now your version of God can probably be shown not to exist, but you would have to clearly define it first.

You were the one who said to me you do not believe in God or the existence of God not me

 

[3rdAngel]

We could stretch definitions a bit. I might agree that because I put a high value on repeatable, reliable evidence, I have "faith" that I don't have to believe in ANYTHING that lacks evidence. So I can put "god" and pink unicorns in the same category. But to be fair, this is really more about valuing evidence.

Yet this is my point. If you cannot prove or have evidence that there is no God then you are living by faith just as much as those who believe in God or the existence of God.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Ice, thanks for sharng your view.

Pehaps that is a view because you do not understand the scriptures IMO.

Thanks for sharing though.

I rate my reading comprehension as pretty high. What I don't trust is any middleman's interpretation of scripture. The words in the book are the words in the book. By what logic do you or any clergyman claim to have a better understanding of the words than I do?

 

[3rdAngel]

I rate my reading comprehension as pretty high. What I don't trust is any middleman's interpretation of scripture. The words in the book are the words in the book. By what logic do you or any clergyman claim to have a better understanding of the words than I do?

This is probably I good way to view the scriptures IMO Ice. The promise in the scriptures is that we do not need a middle man. God wants to be our teacher to all those who are willing to prayerfully seek and find him through them. As the scriptures teach cursed is everyman that trusts in man and makes flesh his arm.. JEREMIAH 17:5

 

[epronovost]

Sure as posted earlier they are still beliefs that have no evidence for what they believe therefore faith IMO

How can you have no evidence for lacking evidence to prove the existence of God? That doesn't seem to make sense. If I say I don't believe in God because I lack evidence for the existence of such a being, how am I lacking evidence to support my doubts about its existence?

 

[ChristineM]

Just as there is evidence for certain aspect that God can exist which you also refuse to believe because it does not suit your faith (athiesm).

I have seen no such evidence that cannot more easily, accurately and simply be explained by reality. More and more of the gaps are being filled

 

[3rdAngel]

How can you have no evidence for lacking evidence to prove the existence of God?

Hi epro, nice to see you. I beleive people can provide evidence for either argument of the existence of God or non existence of God. It depends how reliable that evidence is or is not. The op is simply stating we cannot prove difinitively through evidence that there is or is no God. Hence wheather we believe there is God or not both views live by faith.

 

[3rdAngel]

I have seen no such evidence that cannot more easily, accurately and simply be explained by reality. More and more of the gaps are being filled

This is what you believe and because you prove difinitively that there is no God this is your faith. The argument simply works both ways for those who believe and those who do not believe.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

It means since we don't have evidence to suggest there is a god, why would we assume that one can "possibility" exist? Why ask a question of his existence if we have nothing to prompt us that he would exist to begin with?

For example, I usually use "nothing" in my hand example. If I had nothing in my hand but mentioned there is a pencil, why would you ask "if there is no evidence that there is no pencil there, does that mean there is no pencil there?" Unless you doubt what you don't see, why ask the question. That's how Id see it.

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

Basically. Not all theist religions, though, believe by faith. I know a few say they know god exists. The evidence they give comes from the criteria of their given religious text, tradition, or practice.

But god isn't a abrahamaic word, so...

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

No. What about people do not know what god is, though?

Maybe people who already believed in god and left god or doubt him, that question would make sense. The rest of us, how do we make sense of the question?

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

No. That's just christianity influencing the mindset of people as if it were a default. Then, when someone comes to christ, they see it as "god pulling them" rather than understanding the psychological guilt behind the problem.

The correct "faith" is a personal decision. That, and not all religions believe in faith. That's christian influence. Once you get out of that, I think the answers would be clearer.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

Thanks for your thoughts..

I personally can't. I'd have to be familiar with what you're talking about. "Can you prove they are not" is already assuming one side is right and the other is not.

Maybe look at it from another way it may make more sense.