I believe there are no Gods

[1137]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

 

[skywrath32]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

how can you say that the reality is Godless? I mean Reality is reality and that dont mean that there is no God.

 

[PolyHedral]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

Because the religious try and claim that asserting that there are no gods requires equal justification to asserting that there is one.

 

[Iti oj]

how can you say that the reality is Godless? I mean Reality is reality and that dont mean that there is no God.

Because god is not needed, evident, or interactive.

 

[sandandfoam]

Because the religious try and claim that asserting that there are no gods requires equal justification to asserting that there is one.

That's quite a generalisation. I am religious, I believe that I experience God. At the same time, I see no need at all for someone who does not experience God to justify themselves.

 

[1137]

Because the religious try and claim that asserting that there are no gods requires equal justification to asserting that there is one.

So now we bend to the desires of the ignorant? Why watch our words because of the illogical? This make no sense.

 

[no-body]

You can't make the subjective objective. It's human nature to give it our best shot anyway though.

 

[1137]

You can't make the subjective objective. It's human nature to give it our best shot anyway though.

What is the relevence of this?

 

[no-body]

What is the relevence of this?

There is no wrong or right it is all semantic games.

 

[savagewind]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

I don't understand the question. What is it you might be wrong about in someone else's opinion......... or in your own opinion?

I think what you are saying is why don't atheists claim belief in a god-less reality instead of claiming non-belief in a reality that includes gods? You are right. It should be that way imo.

 

[Quintessence]

I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless.

Not for everyone. To me, "reality" as commonly used describes the sum total of everything humans can experience. Human beliefs eclipse that grandness of reality into a much smaller circle. Most people tend to define "reality" based on that smaller circle they draw that is their worldview, but there are those of us who prefer to recognize the constructed nature of that circle. That makes the distinction between claims about reality and your tiny little experience of it (the belief part) important, to some.

Regardless, you're not really doing anything wrong, per se. Except possibly failing to articulate your worldview to someone who has a different worldview, but that sort of thing happens often and I wouldn't worry overmuch about it.

 

[ChristineES]

We can only base reality on the way we experience it, not the way it truly is. Since each person will experience it differently, I would guess that reality will seem different to each person.
Since the OP sees the world as godless, then that is how s/he experiences it. I experience the world as having a God, so that must be the way I experience it.

 

[1137]

Even if reality is bound to perception, when I say "reality is Godless" I meam that objectively there is no God. God existing in the mind, no problem, but that is not objectively and falls on perception.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

Atheism as an English word means lack of belief, a negative. It is actually not quite the same thing as the positive belief that reality is Godless, though they often go hand in hand.

A person who has never heard of God-concepts lacks belief in Gods, and is therefore an atheist, but doesn't have the positive belief in no Gods.

 

[YmirGF]

Even if reality is bound to perception, when I say "reality is Godless" I meam that objectively there is no God. God existing in the mind, no problem, but that is not objectively and falls on perception.

From my own studies on the idea, perception IS reality, subjectively speaking. Objective reality is another matter entirely and is often out of sync with the subjective reality of many human animals. Saying that reality is inherently godless probably doesn't fly with your garden variety theist, as that is not their experience. To them, god IS all around and whether or not you perceive their subjective perception of reality is irrelevant, as both claims (definitive statements about subjective perceptions) are beyond the realm of proof, or evidence, for that matter.

The good news is that the wise person learns that they can change their perception of reality to suit their needs. Personally speaking, once folks get over their need for their gods, they just might begin to see reality in a new and often stunning way.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

Nobody is saying you're wrong, quite the opposite really. Atheism can describe several subtly different positions and all atheists have their own individual knowledge, opinions and beliefs surrounding the fundamental point.

The valid reason behind those who push the distinction between, for example, "believing in non-existence" and "not believing in existence" is an attempt to distinguish their personal unique position with that of other atheists or with the generic stereotypes commonly presented and applied. In the context of places like this, that often isn't done very well though.

 

[Falvlun]

Atheism as an English word means lack of belief, a negative. It is actually not quite the same thing as the positive belief that reality is Godless, though they often go hand in hand.

A person who has never heard of God-concepts lacks belief in Gods, and is therefore an atheist, but doesn't have the positive belief in no Gods.

There is debate about that. And actually, the lack of belief definition hasn't really become popular or common outside of the atheist or internet-forum-debating-religion communities.

 

[Riverwolf]

There is debate about that. And actually, the lack of belief definition hasn't really become popular or common outside of the atheist or internet-forum-debating-religion communities.

Well, literally translated, that's what it means.

Theism = belief in God/Gods
a- = negation of a positive
So, literally translated, it means negative belief in God/Gods, or, lack of belief in God/Gods.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not quite certain what this "objectively" is supposed to mean. Perhaps it confuses me in this context because the gods are immanent to me, therefore they are the objective reality. That neat setting sun outside my window? That's a god. I usually call it Sun Spirit in my path - sometimes Helius. It's awesome, it's greater than I am, I depend on it for my existence, and therefore it's worthy of reverence. That's the crux of what "god" means to me. I suppose that emotional experience lies in subjective-land, but the things that evoke that experience are very much objectively existing. Asking if there are gods is like asking if there is a universe to me.

 

[Orias]

Because the religious try and claim that asserting that there are no gods requires equal justification to asserting that there is one.

Thats ridiculous because the statements, "I don't believe there is a God" and "I believe there is no God" does not differentiate perspectives between religious or non-religious. Whats the difference between "lacking belief in God" and "believing that there is no God". Are you saying that there is a "God" yet you don't believe in it, or what?