Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[Brickjectivity]

I also think that there is no default state for a person, because we start out identifying with our parents. It takes time to individuate from them and to build our own personalities. Theories of personality that I respect will account for this.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But can someone affirm that there is 0% chance that God ( or whatever you want to call) created this world?
Not talking about 0.1 or 0.0001.
How can one affirm such a thing?

Easy! Use the same "math" that people who claim 100% chance of god use.

Pull it out of thin air, and declare: WINNER. Then shoo the pigeon off the chessboard, and get out the cleaning gear...

 

[blü 2]

Science claimed it was an atheist in reference to religious science medical belief.

Where the title atheist versus religious science review came from.

For no scientist can state without lying that they are not searching for what they say is the Creator of everything.....and hence consciousness claims it as consciousness, in a male life as a form of self deisms….for he is the thinker of it.

So he claims the Creator is in his own image, as the researcher.

Human history states that nuclear science via temple and pyramid had been outlawed and given the title Satanism. Yet science, the con science theme, changed its title...and you would ask self for what reason did an applied male agreed title then be changed? If not for unethical male choice!

Science therefore then imposed that it had become the atheist, as to disassociate the self as the thinker in self deism with self. But you cannot include the self or else you simply would not think for science.

Therefore a spiritual male would identify and realise in his natural spiritual life that atheists are not telling any factual human truth.

They claim that God O the term in science philosophy of the stone had some other beginning other than accepting that God is just the stone...with no beginning, for stone is stone and the HOLY WORD about God, the stone said equals is the answer.

Stone = Stone

Owns historically no beginning and historically owned no end, for the condition spatial emptiness and cold allowed stone to form......so said it was not a reactive state which science and machine is stated by.

Atheism therefore declared that it can continue to do research, as it is searching factually for a beginning of a Creator without bringing to the public attention that they are against existence itself....those who believe in God.

For rational human life mind psyche advice O said God is the stone and if you do not believe in that body, then you only believe in our destruction.

As the reason and historic teaching atheism, and its purpose against religious science end result, natural aware medical advice against radiation increases inside of a cold gas less radiating body.

Scientists tend to find examinable evidence, repeatable experiment, and well-reasoned and transparent argument a potent combination. What do you say they're missing, precisely?

 

[Heyo]

But can someone affirm that there is 0% chance that God ( or whatever you want to call) created this world?
Not talking about 0.1 or 0.0001.
How can one affirm such a thing?

Emphasis by me.

No. Or not yet. We don't even know if the universe is "created" or eternal or cyclical or embedded into a multiverse.
And even if the universe has a starting point, we don't know what could have been the reason for the start.
The universe could be a simulation. Would you call the programmers of the simulation gods?
In M-Theory universes are created whenever membranes collide. If a multidimensional equivalent of a cow kicked the brane we are on, would you call that cow god?
You are looking for a god and you don't even know what a god is. If you have to contemplate if a cow or a team of programmers (or whatever you want to call) could be that what you are looking for, you may want to go back to the definition phase.
If you immediately said "Yes" to the cow and the programmers you got yourself a world-creator with the property "creates worlds" - and nothing else. Then you aren't a theist, you are a deist (and, if I'd want to be nitpicky, an a-theist).

 

[rational experiences]

Scientists tend to find examinable evidence, repeatable experiment, and well-reasoned and transparent argument a potent combination. What do you say they're missing, precisely?

Their own physical self presence, for they claim that just their thoughts own everything that exists, as it is the words of science that claimed that science owned everything.

A rational human living on Earth says, when the stone O planet says it existed first and owned no beginning and no end....as what a science male quoted, as he stood upon that body...then he did.

Males claim that consciousness of self is the atmosphere, therefore they said Consciousness is not God, for you do not own speaking on behalf of a history that would burn you to death...for that is the natural history of God.

Yet a male says I cannot be standing upon burning....why he said to self so logically I am not Satan.

When a male says I am going to create as if creation is going to be created, then where is his well reasoned argument as a combination, when he claims it does not yet exist?

And that is the situation that spiritual males argue against science males...for it is irrational thinking to claim that a Universe does not exist, when he knows it does, and then infers that the Universal thinking will be a machine reaction.

The design machine did not come out of the physical God body reactive history, it came from a thinking non physical design concept that his thoughts in a non stone presence of matter was thought upon.

As radiation owns no design, his study concept to realise design he says was God.

The concept of which he says is fusion and removal of fusion...so he got the design of God being destroyed in holy dust nuclear reactions....as a statement about God.

That concept is not creating from a reaction, it is destroying natural history.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, that makes no sense. My absolute knowledge that 2 + 2 = 4 does NOT mean that I lack a belief that 2 + 2 = 4. In fact, it's IMPOSSIBLE for me to lack a belief that 2 + 2 = 4 IF I have absolute knowledge that 2 + 2 DOES = 4.

Of course 2+2 (modulo 3) = 1.

And if I pour two pints and two pints into a three-pint pot, 2+2=3.

So maybe be careful with words like 'absolute', hein?

 

[Jim]

I don’t have any belief in the reality or existence of any supernatural God or gods. If that makes me an atheist, then I’m an atheist. I take what some scriptures say about the God of Abraham and what He says and does as useful metaphors. If that make me a theist, then I’m a theist.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Choices involve suppressing some thoughts over others.

A clear choice does not involve suppression of any other thought, it is very straight-forward.

I take what some scriptures say about the God of Abraham and what He says and does as useful metaphors. If that make me a theist, then I’m a theist.

With some truth, you accept a whole lot of untruth. And the good is not something uniquely created by these scriptures. It has been around for all human history.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And it's rare maybe almost impossible that somebody would not believe in God 100%.

Strange thing to say. It's a pretty binary thing, actually. You either believe or you don't.

Not even a 0.01% that maybe God created this world.

This scales refers to knowlede, not to belief.
No, I'm not "100% certain there is no god". I am, however, 100% certain that I don't believe in a god.

In the same way, I'm not "100% certain" that we don't live in the matrix. But I'm 100% certain that I don't believe we do.

And if he/she thinks that there is a very small percentage so, than it's not atheism

False.

You're confusing atheism (nonbelief) with gnosticism (knowing).
You can be a gnostic atheism ("i believe and know there is no god") or an agnostic atheist ("i don't believe there is a god, but I don't know").

I personally don't know a single gnostic atheist

; and still he/she will call himself an atheist.

Yes. Because atheism pertains to lack of belief, not to knowledge.

BTW, a famous said or wrote something like that.

It doesn't matter. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The thing that I find, however, is that many atheists aren't truly atheist...they are just mad at Him.

That's a ridiculous position which assumes you know someones thoughts and beliefs better then they do themselves.

I could just as easily say that that many theists aren't truly theist because deep down they know they don't really believe.

 

[blü 2]

it is irrational thinking to claim that a Universe does not exist

Depends on what universe you're talking about. If you mean our universe ─ the world external to the self aka nature aka the sum of things with objective existence (&c) ─ then that's where you'll find science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's impossible there being an Atheist unless you believe there is no value to the universe or a person chooses not to value anything.

Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with what one finds valueable.
It only pertains to nobelief of supernatural entities.

If you are going to posit that not believing that supernatural entities are real, means that that person thinks that nothing has value and nothing matters, then you're just going to be incorrect.

I, as an atheist, value a great many things.

However, they worship other things they hold dear

False. I don't "worship" anything. Well, I guess it would depend on how you use that word off course... But in my understanding of the word, I don't "worship" anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not true studies show kids have belief in unseen, souls, assume design to the universe, and this is ironically used to dismiss God to say we believe due to evolutionary inclinations that can be found in children thinking still.

Children will believe just about anything.

 

[stvdv]

Catchy title

Atheism doesn't exist?

Terminus contradictio ! Catchy indeed !

 

[Heyo]

I, as an atheist, value a great many things.

Nope.
You, as an atheist, don't have any values.
You, as a person who happens to be an atheist, do have many values.

And I'm pretty sure that was what you wanted to say.

 

[stvdv]

And I'm pretty sure that was what you wanted to say.

I'm not pretty sure, but we'll know pretty soon

 

[stvdv]

It's impossible there being an Atheist unless you believe there is no value to the universe or a person chooses not to value anything.

I get the feeling that it seems almost impossible there being a Theist not belittling Atheists (as inferior human beings). That I find really remarkable.

See quote below. It's that simple. No need to superimpose any other mindstuff on Atheists

Atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with what one finds valueable.
It only pertains to nobelief of supernatural entities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But can someone affirm that there is 0% chance that God ( or whatever you want to call) created this world?
Not talking about 0.1 or 0.0001.
How can one affirm such a thing?

Why would that matter?

There are lots of ridiculous, clearly fabricated claims that we can't say with 100% certainty are false.

If God isn't any more supported than, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Kempenfelt Kelly*, then why should I give God any more regard than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Kempenfelt Kelly, two claims that I give no regard to at all?



*the lake monster that was invented as a tourist draw for Lake Simcoe, just north of Toronto: Lake Simcoe Living | Lake Simcoe's own monster | news

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I get the feeling that it seems almost impossible there being a Theist not belittling Atheists (as inferior human beings). That I find really remarkable.

See quote below. It's that simple. No need to superimpose any other mindstuff on Atheists

On a good day, I tend to assume that they're so entrenched in their own theistic belief system that they just can't relate to a belief system that doesn't include God. It seems like many of them just aren't equipped to even have a conversation about atheism, to say nothing about actually seeing the world from an atheist point of view.

 

[night912]

I read his entire post. It stated rather clearly that 'strong' atheists weren't atheists, because only the 'weak' atheists qualify. It was a classic 'true scott' fallacy.

Obviously, it can't be said that you didn't read the entire post. But what can be said is that you didn't understand the post because of what you claimed as being stated. It is possible that someone can still not understand something eventhough it was clearly stated.

Mind you, I usually only see Christians use it...so much so that I think the fallacy should be renamed 'no true Christian' fallacy. They have a list of things one MUST believe in order to be a 'true Christian' (and those lists are never the same as anybody else's list) and everybody else, no matter how minor the disagreement may be, is 'no true Christian."

The difference here is that, atheism/atheist only has one THING in order to be true. And that one particular thing is, "lack of belief in the existence of a god." So it doesn't matter if an atheist have any additional beliefs, those additional beliefs are not what makes an atheist, an atheist. If someone qualifies, with the minimum requirement, as an atheist, then they are an atheist. You can't believe that, "no god exist" without the "lack of belief in the existence of a god."

I thought it ironic as all get out to see an atheist decide that the only true atheists were the ones who lacked a belief in god, and that those who went that step further, who believe that there is no god, is 'no true atheist.'

Remember one thing, someone can misunderstood a statement and think that it is ironic eventhough it's actually not if understood correctly. And someone can be shown that they are wrong even if they don't agree to it. What it means is that they are wrong regardless whether they agree to it or not, they simply just can't accept the fact that they are wrong.