Atheist Desire to Disprove God

[Civil Shephard]

Wait... what? Could you clarify this please? What do you mean by "Subjectively Objective" and "Objectively Subjective?" It's like saying: That crayon is orangey-blue or rather bluishy-orange.

Well simple really... witnesses to any event, crime or otherwise are notoriously unreliable since we judge by what our eyes see and ears hear. Limited senses at best and many serve time in jail falsely accused by honest witnesses. I AM is without need of such witness of man so subjectivity and objectivity are both known in total by the creator of matter and time. I believe only the impartial and overwhelming innocence of... of an original being who's realization of being we became and are becoming. Now as we proceed to our next awareness I AM becomes subjectively and objectively happy in the extreme if not ready to apologize for temporal confinements in our joys and pains.

And Crayon is quite capable of making multi-colored crayons as easily as families can mix and match genetic skin tones.

 

[waitasec]

Atheists need proof, it has nothing to do with them trying to disprove whether or not God is real or not.

but aren't we all born as atheists?
theism is learned while atheism is the default setting, if you will.

 

[outhouse]

but aren't we all born as atheists?
theism is learned while atheism is the default setting, if you will.

very true

christians disapprove atheist, but love their babies

 

[gerobbins]

but aren't we all born as atheists?
theism is learned while atheism is the default setting, if you will.

Everything is set a default when are born. Its when we mature and learn the ways of the world that we come to our own conclusions.

In that respect though Jesus was born as God (for those that believe in God) so was his settings at default?

 

[outhouse]

In that respect though Jesus was born as God (for those that believe in God) so was his settings at default?

jesus as a infant or as a child has no historicity

 

[Orias]

this speaks volumes

why even debate with him????

I don't know whether that is a compliment or not :areyoucra

My Satanic background is not one of theistic origins, so you know.

Furthermore, Orias, it depends on the god claim, the definition given about what the god is for an atheist, or anyone for that matter, to determine whether they believe in it or not.

a·the·ist (

th

-

st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


The flavor of God speak only matters to one who considers it a possibility. Hence your agnostic standpoint, but I am directing atheists, not hybrids.

Watch:

I ask Penguin, Shoinan, and any other atheist to particpate in such below.

1) I posit a god made of wood with for legs connected to a flat surface horizontal and parallel to the ground. Do you believe in such a diety?

2) I posit a god that is equivalent to the cosmos. It's all matter and energy in the universe. Do you believe in such a diety?

3) I posit an infinite and immaterial god that is all powerful and all loving. Do you believe in such a diety?

The point is most atheists assume that a God has to be supernatural, that a God has to exist as a separate and impersonal entity.

I don't believe gods do exist.

I don't believe gods do not exist.

Guess what?

I'm an atheist.

That must be why you have agnostic in front of your label right?

Yes, because it's wrong.

Clearly the definiton disagrees with you.

atheist - definition of atheist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

It's still wrong to say that "most atheists" believe in nothing.

That's because most atheists down right tell me that they believe in nothing, that morals are subjected to one's view points and are highly irrelative to even existence.

It's still wrong to say that most atheists "believe" that no higher being exists. Setting aside for the moment that "higher being" and "god" aren't necessarily the same thing, there's still a difference between lacking a belief in a positive assertion (god exists) and believing a negative assertion (no god exists).

If you want to deaden the semantics than so be it.

It's wrong to say that most atheists agree that a God exists and a God doesn't exists, because the label insists that no God's exist. Unless your telling me that the dictionary doesn't know what atheism is of course.

If that were so much the case then they wouldn't be atheists, merely agnostic or gnostic.

I understand, one can be an atheistic buddhist, whose principals applies not in appealing to a God, but to the self. But the point of the matter is, atheism is a viewpoint that subjects itself to a belief, be it a lack of belief or down right denial, it is still the way one views things, that's the point I have been trying to make this whole time.

Simply because you reject the positive assertion does NOT mean you accept the negative assertion by default.

Of course, that's not what I was saying, that's what the label subjects itself to, that's why most people who are atheist also label themselves in a different context to clarify their beleif.

"I do not believe a god exists" is different than saying, "I believe no god exists". Until you can grasp that, this conversation is stalled.

Of course they are different, but I am insisting upon the belief. The way you word it is irrelative to my point, and until you understand that, this conversation is stalled.

Anyone can personalize belief when you strip it of it's denotative meaning and add conotative and metaphorical senses about it, you and I are no exception.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

A disbelief is not a belief anymore than a disinterest is an interest.

 

[gerobbins]

jesus as a infant or as a child has no historicity

Nether the less its still a good topic for discussion.

 

[Alceste]

Belief isn't structured around God's, I'm glad you are capable of noticing that.



You are an exception, you do not label yourself in Opposition to something beyond you, though clearly you have a sense of it about you.

Nonsense. I am an atheist, a non-theist and an apatheist. I have no "sense of something beyond me" if by this you mean a sentient omnipotent creator deity, as is meant by the majority of theists when they use the word god. Nor am I "an exception". Most atheists, like me, believe a huge number of things that have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god/s. Atheism is not necessarily nihilistic. Strong atheists (those who maintain that "God" does not exist) are in the minority. The majority simply don't have a functioning personal definition for the word "god" due to their LACK of belief, and are disinclined to anthropomorphise and externalize our own super-egos in order to make one.

Comments like that make me wonder why people are so presumptuous.

My assumption is that perhaps you grew up quite a religious Christian, then had a falling out with your sect and rejected the Christian church and its dogma, but this was not comfortable for you as a theist, so you joined a new theistic sect with dogma that is more agreeable to you. It's a common enough story. Is that close?

Satanism is my preference. Emotion plays no role in my own creation, simply experience.

Atheism was a position I defeneded for three years, and this comment I made came from literal experiences of people who label themselves under their religion, "atheist", and then add on descriptive words to sugar up their subsequent nothingness and hypocritical self deceit.

I am capable of defending both sides, theism and atheism. It's just that the greater picture evolves from all of man's gatherings, not some simple minded expression of disdain for an ill-structured belief system.

There is something to gain from all things, of course I am not the only person to realize this, I just tend to see a lot of narrowmindedness in atheists and christians a like, who debate and argue off a foundation from intolerance.

And in this circumstance, one would be a fool to consider themselves as not delusional, we all live and die, by means we create and destroy countless of our own human fabricated concepts.

Sure, living practically applies well when one works to accomplish a dream, but that is the definition of delusion, metaphorically speaking of course.

Your first two paragraphs hit the nail right on the head, you are unlike most non-theists (assuming that you are of course ) and it is people like you that will help others see the greater picture.

Acknowledging one's own hypocrisy can only lead them to seeing inconsistancies in others.

I didn't understand that bit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Furthermore, Orias, it depends on the god claim, the definition given about what the god is for an atheist, or anyone for that matter, to determine whether they believe in it or not.

Watch:

I ask Penguin, Shoinan, and any other atheist to particpate in such below.

1) I posit a god made of wood with for legs connected to a flat surface horizontal and parallel to the ground. Do you believe in such a diety?

2) I posit a god that is equivalent to the cosmos. It's all matter and energy in the universe. Do you believe in such a diety?

I believe in both tables and the cosmos, but I don't agree that they can be rightly called "gods".

3) I posit an infinite and immaterial god that is all powerful and all loving. Do you believe in such a diety?

No, I don't.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Because you believe nothing.

Having no belief is not the same as believing in nothing. I was born a non-believer. As I grew I began to believe a lot of things. Now just just because I believe in a lot of other things does not mean I need a separate label for those things.

So you subject yourself to self deceit.

Huh..?

Is this some sort of..you standing in judgment over me? Is this one of those...because I'm a non-believer I must have been deceived..or something?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

God's done a far better job of disproving itself than I ever could.

 

[gerobbins]

God's done a far better job of disproving itself than I ever could.

That is man that does that not God

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That is man that does that not God

Try reading it a bit more creatively.

 

[shoinan]

a·the·ist (

th

-

st)
n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

That must be why you have agnostic in front of your label right?

Your own definition agrees with me.
It doesn't say "One who believes there are no gods"

From the same site:

dis·be·lief
n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

That's not belief in the inverse or opposite, is it?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The point is most atheists assume that a God has to be supernatural, that a God has to exist as a separate and impersonal entity.

........... No we don't. In Mecca there were 360 idols representing various gods. We acknowledge that the Arabs of that day and time regarded those idols as their gods. We see them for what they were..... (man made idols). We do not assume they were supernatural, rather the Arabs assumed the supposed gods these idols represented possessed supernatural abilities. We don't assume that a god has to exist, rather we believe that the believer (theist) believes through his or her faith that their gods(s) really do exist.

 

[Orias]

Nonsense. I am an atheist, a non-theist and an apatheist.

To correct you, apatheism is "pragmatic" atheism. So you are a non-theist, as opposed to be a theist.

I have no "sense of something beyond me" if by this you mean a sentient omnipotent creator deity, as is meant by the majority of theists when they use the word god.

If you are refering to supernatural, or something beyond natural, then no, that is not what I am referring to.

Nor am I "an exception".

Your right. I assumed you held more meaning to nothingness than you actually do.

Most atheists, like me, believe a huge number of things that have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of god/s.

I know that. But that's not my point.

Atheism is not necessarily nihilistic. Strong atheists (those who maintain that "God" does not exist) are in the minority. The majority simply don't have a functioning personal definition for the word "god" due to their LACK of belief, and are disinclined to anthropomorphise and externalize our own super-egos in order to make one.

But it is nihilistic, because it assumes no God, nothingness, no purpose. Strong, weak, implicit, explicit, they are all words used to describe and sugar up the purpose of nothingness.

Now, you view atheism as a lack of belief which in itself is a belief. Had I known that it would take 13 threads and 122 posts to get this point across I wouldn't of even bothered.

My assumption is that perhaps you grew up quite a religious Christian, then had a falling out with your sect and rejected the Christian church and its dogma, but this was not comfortable for you as a theist, so you joined a new theistic sect with dogma that is more agreeable to you. It's a common enough story. Is that close?

Not even.

I didn't understand that bit.

Then you never will.

 

[Orias]

........... No we don't.

That must be why every atheist I have tried to communicate this point across with assumes that I believe in a diety, an entity or was some part of some propagandistic Christian movement.

Seriously, read some of my posts directed towards atheists and see there responses. You'll have to do some digging.

In Mecca there were 360 idols representing various gods. We acknowledge that the Arabs of that day and time regarded those idols as their gods. We see them for what they were..... (man made idols).

For what they were or what they are? Everything is man fabricated in concept.

We do not assume they were supernatural, rather the Arabs assumed the supposed gods these idols represented possessed supernatural abilities. We don't assume that a god has to exist, rather we believe that the believer (theist) believes through his or her faith that their gods(s) really do exist.

That should be common sense.

But I don't see how this touches down on atheists assume and argue against supernatural theists.

Your own definition agrees with me.
It doesn't say "One who believes there are no gods"

From the same site:

dis·be·lief
n. Refusal or reluctance to believe.

That's not belief in the inverse or opposite, is it?

Well I've had all of the atheists tell me it's a lack in belief, not a disbelief. Am I comming across another inconsistancy?

Of course disbelief is a belief, you belief that you are right.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I've had all of the atheists tell me it's a lack in belief, not a disbelief. Am I comming across another inconsistancy?

There are different kinds of atheists. It could be lack of belief, disbelief with uncertainty, or disbelief with certainty.

Of course disbelief is a belief, you belief that you are right.

Lack of belief could hardly be called "belief".
Uncertain disbelief is merely an opinion...somewhat less than "belief".

 

[shoinan]

Of course disbelief is a belief, you belief that you are right.

You use a dictionary definition for your term. I use the same site to provide a dictionary definition for a word in that term. You then seemingly argue against the dictionary definition - apparently a reluctance or refusal to believe is to believe - and then change the tack from "belief in no gods" to "belief that you are right"

And you accuse atheists of inconsistency?