Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Valjean]

ie, the Dictionary definition which I go by for "atheist" states disbelief or a lack of belief. One can simply lack belief. In which case, "yes" or "no" doesn't apply here.

That's a popular and historical definition. In serious epistemic discussions like this, shouldn't we stick to the technical definition?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That's a popular and historical definition. In serious epistemic discussions like this, shouldn't we stick to the technical definition?

You mean 'disbelief in gods'?

 

[Valjean]

Oh, the irony. Atheism, being nothing more than a belief, belongs to the set of all false perceptions which are delusions. Since God has been proven using logic, and it was shown that logic IS reality, then God is ipso facto real.

What is the belief definitive of atheism? I believe there is none, and have explained this a hundred times already.
What false perception or delusion are you talking about?

God has not been proven -- and certainly not logically. Clearly you are not familiar with atheism or the logical refutations of the various arguments for god.
It's always been us atheists using the logic. Theists seem totally unfamiliar with it.

If God has been proven real, why isn't the belief universally accepted, like gravity, heliocentrism or the germ theory?

It is granting the illogical atheistic position as true. Since mind=reality at the ultimate level of reality, then atheist belief creates a misunderstanding of reality, namely that God does not exist.

How is the position illogical? You need to explain that.
Atheism doesn't claim God doesn't exist. It claims there's insufficient actual evidence to justify the belief, at this point.

Whatis your evidence that God exists?

But we have already established God's existence as fact due to XYZ, so your argument that the OP is misleading falls flat on its face.

STOP IT! If you've been even casually following the atheism-theism debate, you'd know the claim has not been established.

Yet Langan and I have proven the existence of God. So your claim is ipso facto false.

Horsefeathers! Please outline this proof.

It is not the theists that are committing the fallacy. Granted not all of them use logic in their arguments

Not that it matters; but we have no burden of proof, since our position is not based on any positive claims, It's up to you to prove your claim. If you cannot meet your burden, atheism is logically assumed.

.I define atheism as a position which is based on the failure to go beyond the material illusion (either empirically or logically) and thus accepts the belief that the One true God is unreal. Therefore, the question "do atheists believe that God does not exist?" is perfectly valid.

We don't say God is unreal. We say that there is insufficient empirical evidence to support this conclusion. We say the actual evidence for God is equivalent to the evidence for leprechauns, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Again, Langan and I have logically proven to the entire world the empirical fact that God is real. All that remains is for the ignorant to open their eyes.

So why isn't acceptance universal? Why is disbelief proportional to education?

Please help us open our eyes. Show us your evidence.

 

[Valjean]

I don't think all babies are evil. However, all babies are hardwired to believe in God, so they would answer yes.

Evidence, please. Support your claim.

 

[Valjean]

You mean 'disbelief in gods'?

"Disbelief" is ambiguous, It can mean both lack of belief or belief in non-existence.

 

[F1fan]

Oh, the irony. Atheism, being nothing more than a belief, belongs to the set of all false perceptions which are delusions. Since God has been proven using logic, and it was shown that logic IS reality, then God is ipso facto real.

As if you are God yourself and anything you say or write is absolute. But you aren't, you're an ordinary person who needs to follow the rules of discourse like anyone else. Where is your evidence and coherent explanation?

It is granting the illogical atheistic position as true. Since mind=reality at the ultimate level of reality, then atheist belief creates a misunderstanding of reality, namely that God does not exist.

Another set of claims, no evidence or explanation, so we throw it out.

But we have already established God's existence as fact due to XYZ, so your argument that the OP is misleading falls flat on its face.

Quite a bold claim that isn't true. It doesn't concern you to make obviously false statements?

Yet Langan and I have proven the existence of God. So your claim is ipso facto false.

This isn't a true claim.

It is not the theists that are committing the fallacy. Granted not all of them use logic in their arguments.

This is partially correct in that theists don't use logic effectively since they don't have veidence or data that demonstrates their religious beliefs are true, or even likely true.

I define atheism as a position which is based on the failure to go beyond the material illusion (either empirically or logically) and thus accepts the belief that the One true God is unreal. Therefore, the question "do atheists believe that God does not exist?" is perfectly valid.

Why not use a proper definition? I am seeing more theists use a false or invented definition that isn't true or reliable.

Again, Langan and I have logically proven to the entire world the empirical fact that God is real. All that remains is for the ignorant to open their eyes.

Not that I have seen, nor others who have responded to you. So I'm not convinced.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Oh, but you are.
Your over confidence indicts you.

Ah! You would like me to have no confidence and agree to whatever trash you offer?

 

[Ella S.]

Fact: your pedantic, like seriously

Pedantry is sometimes the only logical response to absurd nonsense. Quit whining; it's what your post earned you.

If you want something less pedantic, then make better quality posts.

 

[danieldemol]

Denying one's Creator is an egregious crime.

Baring false witness is the only egregious crime I see around here in my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

We were created in His image i.e. spiritual beings - you can't figure that much out?

No. Show me the evidence from which you drew this conclusion.

 

[Valjean]

I already answered, for crying-out-loud - religions exist in all societies - that 's not a product of protoplasm and stardust, obviously

Religions may exist, but they don't all include gods, and in those that do, a creator/monitor/judge model is unusual.

 

[Valjean]

You can show plenty of evidence that God does not exist?
After you....

He doesn't need to. He doesn't have the burden. You do.

 

[Valjean]

Fact: your pedantic, like seriously

You don't like pedants? You're anti-education?
That explains a lot....

Then why have you devolved so much?

??????????????

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheism, being nothing more than a belief, belongs to the set of all false perceptions which are delusions

Atheism is not even one belief. It's the product of two prior beliefs, namely, that nothing should be believed without sufficient supporting evidence and that the evidence for gods is inadequate to support theism.

God has been proven using logic

"God" (as opposed to a god) suggests that one means a specific deity, and in Western culture (and the Muslim world), that's usually the god of Abraham. If you mean that god, it's been ruled out both empirically and using pure reason.

atheist belief creates a misunderstanding of reality, namely that God does not exist.

You have a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

do atheists believe that God does not exist

Some. Most are agnostic atheists.

all babies are hardwired to believe in God

Disagree. Left to their own devices, they'd be atheists. I was. My parents didn't raise us with religion, and my sister and I grew up as atheists and are both atheists now, although I tried Christianity for a decade beginning at age 18. It wasn't for me. I guess I'm not hard-wired to believe in gods after all.

You can show plenty of evidence that God does not exist?

He didn't make that claim, but if by "God" you mean the Abrahamic god, yes, it has been ruled out. There was never an Adam and Eve, or six days of creation. If you mean all gods proposed or believed in, no

Fact: your pedantic, like seriously

*you're*

 

[Windwalker]

For crying-out-load, you mis-interpreted every passage that you quoted.
'rocks crying out' is a figure of speech, obviously - my stars?

Do you believe I meant they would actually vocalize speech, that suddenly you hear rocks crying and making human speeches?

Of course these are metaphors or figures of speech, but they are pointing to something real. These rocks, these lilies, these trees, these lakes, these skies, all express the spiritual nature of God!

You don't believe me? What do you think the Psalmist was conveying in his poetry here?

The heavens declare the glory of God;​

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.​

Day after day they pour forth speech;​

night after night they reveal knowledge.​

They have no speech, they use no words;​

no sound is heard from them.​

Yet their voice[b] goes out into all the earth,​

their words to the ends of the world.​

I haven't misinterpreted anything. They are clearly expressing what I was saying, that all of creation is an expression of the Divine, and therefore you can, and should be able to see Spirit in everything.

You disagree with this? Please explain otherwise then.

'..the lilies don't toil...' also refers to their inanimate, or non-sentient, or not self-determining aspect of their existence - their beauty was the point.

What do you mean they are inanimate? They are alive, not dead. This is the definition of inanimate:

not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.​

"inanimate objects like stones"​

Plants are living things.

As far as not being 'sentient' goes, let's look at the definition of that as well.

"capable of sensing or feeling : conscious of or responsive to the sensations of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, or smelling"​

​

Are animals sentient according the above definition? Of course they are. They clearly are aware of their surroundings and responsive to them through the senses they posses. Correct?

But what about plants? Are they aware of their surroundings and responded accordingly to what they sense? I think the answer to this is clear as well. Of course they are, in the broad sense of the term. They may not "think" using cognitive constructs such as "I don't see the sun out today", but they certainly are aware of its lack of being there and respond accordingly trying to reach out to find it, no?

Basically, they are "aware" at some level of their environment and do what they do in order to survive and live out their life cycles. They are however not "self-determinant". I would never argue that. They are not that complex of a lifeform, but they are a lifeform nonetheless.

But let's look at the metaphor more closely. I would say we could say that Beauty in them as an expression of the Divine itself, "worships" God in return. I believe that is inherent in the meaning of what Jesus said about their glory, their inherent radiance surpassing all of these man-made glories that the human ego comes up with.

The psalmist said that in the 19th Psalm, for starters. The lilies "declare the glory of God", in their simplicity, like a little child in its innocence. It's all there. I'm a little surprised you haven't seen it.

 

[Ostronomos]

This is a pretty recent explanation of what is meant by being hardwired for belief in God and other religious concepts.

The Human Brain Evolved to Believe in Gods

How belief in the supernatural makes sense in light of evolution.

www.discovermagazine.com

If that article is an attempt to discredit God and religion it is very poor as it is an appeal to evolution.

It only describes the origins of belief but it does not explain the higher reality of the cosmos as a global entity.

It also does not explain the origin of evolution and why it was created. Evolution and nature are have their origins in quantum mechanics, where the true source of everything lies.

I suggest if you want an origin story on biology you should make an effort to study quantum biology and I will applaud you.

 

[Ostronomos]

Atheism is not even one belief. It's the product of two prior beliefs, namely, that nothing should be believed without sufficient supporting evidence and that the evidence for gods is inadequate to support theism.

"God" (as opposed to a god) suggests that one means a specific deity, and in Western culture (and the Muslim world), that's usually the god of Abraham. If you mean that god, it's been ruled out both empirically and using pure reason.

I beg to differ. That God bears a close resemblance to the scientific version of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscience Being.

Do not conflate the real God with a super-being existing externally. Rather, locate it within the realm of possibility as both supernatural and scientific.

You have a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

Some. Most are agnostic atheists.

Disagree. Left to their own devices, they'd be atheists. I was. My parents didn't raise us with religion, and my sister and I grew up as atheists and are both atheists now, although I tried Christianity for a decade beginning at age 18. It wasn't for me. I guess I'm not hard-wired to believe in gods after all.

Subconsciously everyone is a theist. But here I use the term loosely. When I say theist I mean anyone who falls under the category of subconscious believer and would not accept fatalism as an answer to the cosmic riddle.

He didn't make that claim, but if by "God" you mean the Abrahamic god, yes, it has been ruled out. There was never an Adam and Eve, or six days of creation. If you mean all gods proposed or believed in, no

*you're*

Fair enough.

 

[Windwalker]

OK, at what level of reality, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty.
Reality is different at different levels.

In this discussion, I've been speaking from 3rd-state.

You'll have to help clarify what you mean by the "3rd-state". As I'm not sure what you mean there, and can't say I "lack a belief it it" at this point.

But yes, I agree that reality is experienced as different at different levels. And hopefully this will get to what I'm getting at. You'll need to explain your understanding of this first to see if we are on the same page. I can't say I either agree or disagree, believe or disbelieve, or even "lack a belief" until I have a better idea of what you are referring to here. Were I to declare I lack a belief in what you are saying, and yet am not clear at what you are meaning, that would be irrational for me to say that.

In case that point wasn't clear, I'm demonstrating how this claim that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief is improper to claim unless someone first understands what it is they are supposed to believe in or not. They very well may fully believe it, but simply can't say because they aren't clear how the other person is using the term. Exactly like in this post.

 

[F1fan]

If that article is an attempt to discredit God and religion it is very poor as it is an appeal to evolution.

False. It is an explanation of how nature works, namely the human brian and evolution. Your bias and indifference to knowledge is your `problem. Do you ever question your bias against science and why you have decided to see it as incorrect?

It only describes the origins of belief but it does not explain the higher reality of the cosmos as a global entity.

What "higher reality of the cosmos? Define this idea, and explain how it is true and based on fact. And how is something that is a reality of the cosmos a limited global entity? More woo woo talk that means nothing?

It also does not explain the origin of evolution and why it was created.

Why assume there was an origin? Why assume it was created? It is just a mechanism of energy/matter and the laws of the material universe. If you believe there is more to it, then expalin it and use facts and expert references. In my experience with creationists since 1996 your tribe will not show their beliefs have any basis in reality, only bad interpretations of religious books and personal experience. So I predict you will post more irrational statements without any evidence.

Evolution and nature are have their origins in quantum mechanics, where the true source of everything lies.

I thought you rejected evolution. Are you accepting that nature is godless and functions as it does via natural cause and effect?

I suggest if you want an origin story on biology you should make an effort to study quantum biology and I will applaud you.

I doubt you understand this, as it only works if evolution is a real phenomenon. And it makes no reference to any gods, so how does that work with your religious beliefs?

 

[F1fan]

I beg to differ. That God bears a close resemblance to the scientific version of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscience Being.

Really? What are the facts and data you use to make this realization? Thus far no gods are known to exist outside of human imagination.

Do not conflate the real God with a super-being existing externally. Rather, locate it within the realm of possibility as both supernatural and scientific.

How can it be a "real God" but still just be referred to as a possibility? It can't be both. Thus far there is no God that is scientifiic. Supernatural is synonymous with imaginary, BTW.

Subconsciously everyone is a theist.

Only if you are referring to how we humans are influenced to conform to the norms of religious belief. Most humans are indoctrinated to believe only because others are beliving and the ideas are adoted without reason being applied to them. We humans acquire many ideas this way, but most serve a purpose as we navigate life, like language and signs/symbols. As we know a select few do question the religious ideas we are exposed to, and investigate why these are so prevalent. This is why atheists exist among many believers. No believer can explain why they believe versus don't believe. They just do, like robots.

But here I use the term loosely. When I say theist I mean anyone who falls under the category of subconscious believer and would not accept fatalism as an answer to the cosmic riddle.

It is fair to say that most believers do so due to what their subconscious directs. No believer comes to a rational conclusion that a god exists via facts and reasoning, they believe for biological and social reasons. Are most capable of rejecting belief? I'm not sure, many seem highly dependent and unable to look beyond religious belief.