Atheism does not exist

[zaybu]

I am not setting up an argument against atheism I am just stating that atheist should keep the meaning of atheism pure to prevent contradictions in the line of thinking.

My god is the deistic god. he does not intervene with his creation because he is so perfect he does not make mistakes so he has no further reason to provide anything else to this universe as it is in accordance to his will. The heavens themselves exist the way there needed and mankind according to my god is not the center of the universe.
I have encountered spirits once and have experience my god multiple times but only 1 moment I can recall.
he existed before religion and he will exist after.
He is irrefutable as well. If he was not then Dawkins himself would not testify that he is unable to do so nor would Michio Kaku. SO I challenge you to denounce something which I have experience and nobody else can refute because his only scripture is everything you see and believe. If you believe in wind, you believe in my god, if you believe that your hand is real you believe in my god.

So your god does not intervene, but you met him once and experience him multiple times. So how does that square when you meet some entity that doesn't intervene? How did the conversation go? And what is this scripture? How did you get your hands on that? If god wrote that scripture, wouldn't that count as an intervention?

 

[NIX]

Atheism.

Lack of belief of gods who 'require' belief
and
Lack of inclination to refer to anything that does not require belief,
by the label "god".

Not every idea, concept or experience of 'god' requires belief. (and certainly not 'belief proper')

 

[dust1n]

I was talking to a friend of mine one day and he told me atheists do not exist. I asked him how can you say that if he himself is an atheist.
He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity. Because an atheist can cloud his or her disposition by holding strong to science they are also holding strong to scientific principles. Meaning to declare the unknown that is not known is a fallacy in thought.
Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist" and will ramble on and on about cosmological sciences when they themselves are a fool by default for ignoring their very own source of reason.

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god. But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

But the other issue is that if a person concludes there is no god then they are at equal footing to that of a theist.

See where this confusing puzzle is going folks?

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then perhaps atheism should just be lumped with theism as the core thinking is the same . Like a sad case of the irony when one realizes their greatest enemy is themselves.

God doesn't exist. Much like fairies don't and unicorns, etc. I have no need to prove it to anyone. Logically addressing an absurdity is of course going to be fruitless.

 

[dust1n]

He is irrefutable as well. If he was not then Dawkins himself would not testify that he is unable to do so nor would Michio Kaku. SO I challenge you to denounce something which I have experience and nobody else can refute because his only scripture is everything you see and believe. If you believe in wind, you believe in my god, if you believe that your hand is real you believe in my god.

I have no interest in denouncing your experiences, but they are certainly not automatically entitled to reverence, respect or merit by virtually existing. I believe in wind, I don't believe in your God. I believe my hand is real, I don't believe in your God. Calling reality scripture is not accurate because you insist it is. I call reality reality. There is no reason to romanticize it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

So your god does not intervene, but you met him once and experience him multiple times. So how does that square when you meet some entity that doesn't intervene? How did the conversation go? And what is this scripture? How did you get your hands on that? If god wrote that scripture, wouldn't that count as an intervention?

Intervention implies a physical action such as a miracle of some sorts.

God never wrote a scripture so how is he intervening if he never wrote a scripture. This argument is best placed against a theist of some sort.

 

[dust1n]

Intervention implies a physical action such as a miracle of some sorts.

Spawning a physical universe isn't a physical action?

 

[Sha'irullah]

God doesn't exist. Much like fairies don't and unicorns, etc. I have no need to prove it to anyone. Logically addressing an absurdity is of course going to be fruitless.

This is what I was referring to. You claim you can prove god does not exist so please provide the evidence.
This is where atheism leads into a blind dogmatism like theism. You are arguing with yourself when you argue with a theist essentially.
Point me int he right direction of why god does not exist.

I know you cannot provide the evidence and it will only be based of opinion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Spawning a physical universe isn't a physical action?

But did I not state that god created this universe before? I also stated that he because of being a perfect being has not need to intervene in his creation meaning he created then stayed out of our way.

I addressed this before.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have no interest in denouncing your experiences, but they are certainly not automatically entitled to reverence, respect or merit by virtually existing. I believe in wind, I don't believe in your God. I believe my hand is real, I don't believe in your God. Calling reality scripture is not accurate because you insist it is. I call reality reality. There is no reason to romanticize it.

I am not asking for reverence or proof that god does or does not exist. I am placing an argument on the true definition of atheism. You are not helping at that since you are making atheism appear as worse as organized religion.

I call the the Bible(scripture) a book written by men and so do you. You say reality was not written by god but I say it is. Same thing.
You are providing nothing new and are going in circles. What you call reality means nothing and the same applies for me. Reality is MY scripture not yours unless you wish to accept it as such.

 

[dust1n]

This is what I was referring to. You claim you can prove god does not exist so please provide the evidence.
This is where atheism leads into a blind dogmatism like theism. You are arguing with yourself when you argue with a theist essentially.
Point me int he right direction of why god does not exist.

I know you cannot provide the evidence and it will only be based of opinion.

Like I said, I don't need to prove God exists. But if it logically follows that nothing can be said of God, then why talk about it? There is no reason to talk about something for which cannot be known, and it's ridiculous to think that we should be proving things of imagination. I'm not concerned with whatever fantasies people create for themselves; at least not religiously.

 

[dust1n]

But did I not state that god created this universe before? I also stated that he because of being a perfect being has not need to intervene in his creation meaning he created then stayed out of our way.

I addressed this before.

Sure, I get that, but I fail why your conception of God allows him to create a universe but not exist within it. Creating is the greatest intervention. There is no reason to intervene when you've already preemptively created a path for all physical existence to follow.

 

[dust1n]

I am not asking for reverence or proof that god does or does not exist. I am placing an argument on the true definition of atheism. You are not helping at that since you are making atheism appear as worse as organized religion.

I'm glad disagreeing with you is matched next to centuries of genocide and inequity in society, or worse.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. There is no God. I don't need to disprove whatever your conception of God is, all I need to do is disprove your conception of God is unfounded. There is no true definition of atheism - why should it matter? I know other atheists don't agree with me. That doesn't mean suddenly a broad term should be exclusive towards them suddenly despite the word's multiple historical uses.

I call the the Bible(scripture) a book written by men and so do you. You say reality was not written by god but I say it is. Same thing.
You are providing nothing new and are going in circles. What you call reality means nothing and the same applies for me. Reality is MY scripture not yours unless you wish to accept it as such.

Then don't tell people believing in air or their hands is equivalent to believing in your God, and you'll probably face less contention.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sure, I get that, but I fail why your conception of God allows him to create a universe but not exist within it. Creating is the greatest intervention. There is no reason to intervene when you've already preemptively created a path for all physical existence to follow.

One of the many aspects of god expressed by all religions is his perfection. Yes Christians, Muslims and Jews have him creating man then man rebelling against him. God creates the devil and he to rebels against him. God makes mistake after mistake and cannot get anything right.
If you truly visualized the concept of god being perfect then why would he ever have to take part in his creation? It is hypocritical to say god is perfect yet he makes so many errors.
God would just infinitely keep creating as I have said before (not on this thread) but I never say it is within the same creation. Much like a manufacturer once a product is made and done nobody goes back to it and adds more to something already finished. You instead make more of the same or a different product. I guess you can see what I am implying.

Also why would a god exist "within a universe"? It would be the exact opposite

 

[dust1n]

One of the many aspects of god expressed by all religions is his perfection. Yes Christians, Muslims and Jews have him creating man then man rebelling against him. God creates the devil and he to rebels against him. God makes mistake after mistake and cannot get anything right.
If you truly visualized the concept of god being perfect then why would he ever have to take part in his creation? It is hypocritical to say god is perfect yet he makes so many errors.
God would just infinitely keep creating as I have said before (not on this thread) but I never say it is within the same creation. Much like a manufacturer once a product is made and done nobody goes back to it and adds more to something already finished. You instead make more of the same or a different product. I guess you can see what I am implying.

Also why would a god exist "within a universe"? It would be the exact opposite

I hold with the same conviction that you have that there is a creator preemptive to physical existence but in regards to none of the being true or useful. I'm still not understanding why you are talking about God. If I can't prove he doesn't exist, you certainly can't prove that is perfect, or that he would "just infinitely keep creating." This is speculation presented as fact. But it's not my intention to redefine the word deism to exclude your beliefs because you hold them as true despite being able to prove it.

It the same sense, it's impossible to talk about whether god intervenes in the physical world in the same sense it's impossible for me to disprove God (since metaphysics isn't subject to logic). And in the same sense, it's impossible to know whether it is impossible to know about God and it is impossible to know whether or not it is possible to prove or disprove God. Neither of those sentiments can be proven.

So, I'd suggest to liberally apply your skepticism of people's beliefs equally if you are going to do it. Sorry, I thought it would be fun to have a little fun with ya.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm glad disagreeing with you is matched next to centuries of genocide and inequity in society, or worse.

Deism never did that, people did.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God. There is no God. I don't need to disprove whatever your conception of God is, all I need to do is disprove your conception of God is unfounded. There is no true definition of atheism - why should it matter? I know other atheists don't agree with me. That doesn't mean suddenly a broad term should be exclusive towards them suddenly despite the word's multiple historical uses.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying you do not need to disprove my god or any god yet you are shying away from it.
My conception of god is unfounded? Then I can say the same for your conception of reality assuming you believe in something that is not technically proven.
if atheism has no definition then how do you know what you are? If you wish to have no true definition then being atheist can be equivalent to be agnostic or a theist. You have to apply a definition to something for it to be recognized.

Then don't tell people believing in air or their hands is equivalent to believing in your God, and you'll probably face less contention.

I just took notice of what I said before but belief in "evidence" was more appropriate. My mistake on that but ti does not change anything as it is still a matter of opinion and we do not share the equivalent opinion to begin with.

 

[idav]

Also why would a god exist "within a universe"? It would be the exact opposite

Omnipresence. For God to be all powerful it helps to be all present.

 

[dust1n]

Deism never did that, people did.

I agree. You compared me and what I was doing to organized religion. Organized religion is people. And those organized religions all supported a genocide. The comparison was invited by you upon me, not the other way around.



I'll respond to the rest later, I must go to sleep.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I hold with the same conviction that you have that there is a creator preemptive to physical existence but in regards to none of the being true or useful. I'm still not understanding why you are talking about God. If I can't prove he doesn't exist, you certainly can't prove that is perfect, or that he would "just infinitely keep creating." This is speculation presented as fact.

I never said I could or would prove he existed, you did. Not me. I am just asking for a clearer definition of atheism.
I also never presented any of this as fact, I have made it obviously clear it is just speculation. You are the one assigning false notions to my words.

Also I never declared it a fact of any kind that god exist. As I have said numerous times on RF I believe the odds of a god existing are higher then the odds of him not.

But it's not my intention to redefine the word deism to exclude your beliefs because you hold them as true despite being able to prove it.

I never said I was going to prove anything. To repeat myself, you are the one who claimed to prove that there is no god and shortly after that statement you said you wouldn't. You copped out before the argument began.

It the same sense, it's impossible to talk about whether god intervenes in the physical world the same sense it's impossible for me to disprove God (since metaphysics isn't subject to logic). And in the same sense, it's impossible to know whether it is impossible to know about God and it is impossible to know whether or not it is possible to prove or disprove God. Neither of those sentiments can be proven.

I have stated this before but you keep assigning false words to me. :yes:

So, I'd suggest to liberally apply your skepticism of people's beliefs equally if you are going to do it. Sorry, I thought it would be fun to have a little fun with ya.

I am not applying skepticism you are, again. You started the argument about something I do not even support as fact.
I am asking for a defined and improved definition of atheism .
I told you that you would end up arguing with yourself. You are talking in circles assuming all the way through.
How do you expect to disprove a persons argument if they are speculative? This is like trying to prove a theory as theoretical. It is essentially an oxymoron.

 

[idav]

The definitions I have always gone by, and that I find the most useful, are the following.

Theism/Atheism = Belief/ Lack of belief

Gnostic/Agnostic = To claim knowledge/ Lack of knowledge

These work well because there are distinctions. A Christian may claim to believe a God exist, but also know it exists. This would be a gnostic/theist.

An atheist could also claim to believe and also know that God doesn't exist and would be a gnostic/atheist.

I find both of the above positions completely absurd. Most of the Atheists I have talked to would say they don't believe in a God, but can't know with complete certainty that none exist. They would be Agnostic Atheists. So there lack of belief is reasonable as is there willingness to admit they don't know everything and could be wrong. I would also find Agnostic/Theists reasonable, but have a harder time finding those.

I like this which goes with what the word parts are supposed to mean. Still avoids a lot of complications. Atheist is a null belief that wouldn't get any special treatment if it was disbelief, lack of belief, nonbelief in smurfs or what have you.

And again agreed. Gnostic is knowing. Gnosis and science are the word knowledge in Latin and Greek if I remember right. Knowing is quite different from belief or faith.

I can understand the contention with anyone being gnostic but the the truth is any knowledge is knowledge towards the truth. If the truth is no god or yes god then the knowledge remains the same.

 

[zaybu]

Intervention implies a physical action such as a miracle of some sorts.

So when you meet with your god, how do you communicate?

God never wrote a scripture so how is he intervening if he never wrote a scripture. This argument is best placed against a theist of some sort.

Your own words: "because his only scripture is everything you see and believe" What did you mean by that?