Is atheism a religion?

[PureX]

Mathematics is an entirely abstract system of quantitative logic.

... That we keep applying to our experience of reality to better manipulate it to our advantage and to better 'cognate' our experience of existence.

 

[exchemist]

... That we keep applying to our experience of reality to better manipulate it to our advantage and to better 'cognate' our experience of existence.

........When we do science.

Yes , you can apply mathematics to situations in the physical world but that is not what mathematics is, in essence. Anyone who has studied a bit of 6th form maths will know this. I have fond memories of learning the mathematics of conic sections, complex numbers and Taylor expansions, without any mention whatsoever of the various applications to which physics puts these concepts.

Such things are developed and exist as abstractions in their own right, with no reference to the physical world. What, for example, do you think is the physical significance of Euler's identity, widely regarded as one of the most beautiful results in mathematics: exp(iπ)+1 =0 ?

 

[PureX]

........When we do science.

No, when we do math. A shepherd is not doing science when he counts his sheep to sell of half of them. A landlord is not doing science when he measures out his land for rent to a tenant farmer. You are not doing science when you count your change at the widget store. You are using mathematics to conceptualize your experience of reality in such a way as to gain the most benefit from it, and to better understand it cognitively.

Yes , you can apply mathematics to situations in the physical world but that is not what mathematics is, in essence.

We've already agreed that what it IS, is a collection of conceptual ideals interrelated into an ideology, that we then use to conceptualize our experience of existence. I really don't think you have any idea what or why you're even arguing at this point.

Anyone who has studied a bit of 6th form maths will know this. I have fond memories of learning the mathematics of conic sections, complex numbers and Taylor expansions, without any mention whatsoever of the various applications to which physics puts these concepts.

Such things are developed and exist as abstractions in their own right, with no reference to the physical world. What, for example, do you think is the physical significance of Euler's identity, widely regarded as one of the most beautiful results in mathematics: exp(iπ)+1 =0 ?

I think it's a form of mental masterbation, same as any other non-applied ideology. It means nothing and it proves nothing until it's applied to our experience of being. And even then, it's "proof" remains limited and relative.

 

[exchemist]

I think it's a form of mental masterbation, same as any other non-applied ideology. It means nothing and it proves nothing until it's applied to our experience of being. And even then, it's "proof" remains limited and relative.

That is one of the most narrow-minded and ignorant remarks it has been my misfortune to encounter on this forum. (Leaving aside the Jehovah's Witnesses of course.)

 

[ecco]

A collection of abstract ideals, like 'equality','nothing' (zero), 'infinity', and so on, interrelated, is called an ideology. It is a way of conceptualizing our experience of existence. Keep in mind that there is no such state as "equal to". The only way two things could be equal to each other is for them to be the same thing, or for us to simply ignore the ways in which they are not equal. Math is "real", it's a way of perceiving what's real. Like a language.

In the decimal system...
2 is always 2. 11 is always a prime number. Pi to 5 places is always 3.14159. 2x3 always = 6. That is mathematics and that is not an ideology. It is not a way of "conceptualizing our experience of existence".

Language, as we can see from our brief dialog, is vague. This is especially true if people, intentionally or through ignorance, misuse words.

 

[ecco]

Gods are nothing more or less than the creations of man's imaginings. As such I will assert that no gods exist.
Likewise, I will assert that Santa Claus does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that psychic snowflakes do not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Cottingley Fairies do not exist.
Mickey Mouse
Superman
Bart Simpson

Need I go on?

And yet everyone of these exists in your mind, which is obvious to everyone but you, apparently.

Wrong. None of these things exist in my mind or anyone's mind. Words and thoughts exist in my mind. Some of them are...
Rock, sun, chicken, purex, he , bunny, psychic snowflake, asdfx, ghost, goblin, religion, abstract, word, politics, quark, atom. They are words that represent things. Some of these words represent physical "stuff". Some of these words represent concepts or ideas.

What I find fascinating, here, is that you don't believe that what you think is "real".

That's vague at best. Are you implying that if I think there is a naked woman standing next to me, then a naked woman will suddenly appear next to me? I would be overjoyed to be able to agree with you. However, I assure you, you are wrong.

Your idea would also mean that before humans, there was no earth since there were no humans to think about the earth. That's kinda silly.

And yet you keep on thinking that you know what's real and what isn't.

In the list of things that I posted above, please show those things where you disagree with my assessment of their existence.

 

[ecco]

I stated that "There is abundant objective evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings."

There is absolutely NO objective verifiable evidence for this philosophical/theological assertion.

Consider the following...

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was the chief of the animals. He saw the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground.​

This passage did not appear by itself. This passage was created/written by a human being. It is not necessary to identify to person who wrote it in order to objectively state that it was created/written by a human being.

At the beginning there was a huge drop of milk
Then Doondari (God) came and he created the stone.
Then the stone created iron;
And iron created fire;
And fire created water;
And water created air.
​

This passage did not appear by itself. This passage was created/written by a human being. It is not necessary to identify to person who wrote it in order to objectively state that it was created/written by a human being.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.​

This passage did not appear by itself. This passage was created/written by a human being. It is not necessary to identify to person who wrote it in order to objectively state that it was created/written by a human being.

Since the three differ, all three cannot be accurate. That is objective evidence that at least two of them are false.

If you read my posts the questions were already answered.

No, they were not. If you had actually answered them, all you had to do was refer me to the post where you answered them. There was no such post.

You sure are super dense.

Consider yourself lucky that I am not one of those people who reports personal attacks. I consider posts like that and...

Phffffttttt!! Plop! Plop!

...indicative of a posters inability to respond coherently. They put a smile on my face.

 

[Curious George]

You made the sarcastic remark that "that most people do not believe that happiness needs treatment". Since you were stating the obvious for most cases, I thought you should also be aware of the exceptions. So I used "Manic", which has everything to do with a state of happiness, and nothing to do with the price of tea in China. Except in your mind.



I stated babies can be called anything you want, why pick Atheists?. Unless you can demonstrate some objective observable characteristic that supports your labels, a baby as an Atheists, a Theist, a Buddhist, or what ever, becomes just another one of your category errors; an argument from ignorance; or just begging the question. The obvious question is how do you know this? You simply take whatever part of a definition you need, and twist it to fit whatever narrative you create. Just because you define something one way, doesn't mean it applies in another way. Are all animals Atheists? Is that computer an atheist computer. By your category error even the trees are atheists. Your category must be consistent.

You are obviously another person that doesn't know the difference between claiming that "no God(s) exists, and that God(s) does not exist. In the first claim an Atheist needs to prove, and the second claim, the believer needs to prove. Atheism is based totally on the believers inability to prove his claims. If he could, there would be no Atheists. Categorizing an Atheist is just as silly as categorizing Theists. I certainly can't prove that no God(s) exist, so why would any Atheist make that claim? If New Atheist make this claim, they must prove it. My personal BELIEF however, is that not only does no God(s) exist, but that no God can exist. If any God were to enter our reality, reality itself would no longer exist. All the Natural and Quantum laws would become so unstable that they would collapse. The Laws of physics can't be violated, and the laws of Causality can't be ignored. What you fail to realize is that space time is not stagnant. Hundreds of thousands of years have already happened in the future. If there were any God in the future, we wouldn't be having this debate. We wouldn't exist at all.



It is truly sad to watch how you make up your own logic, and manipulate what others say. It is like watching someone trying to convince themselves that they are right. NO GODS EXISTS, is a knowledge claim. I would be saying that I know that NO GOD(S) EXIST. My claim(no matter how you try to distort it), is a DISBELIEF THAT A GOD(S) EXIST, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT BELIEF. Nothing more, nothing less. In other words I personally do not believe that a God exists, because of the total lack of evidence. If believers could produce even one bit of evidence for the existence of God, we would actually be having a debate.



No I did not realize that you believe that no God exist. And, certainly not based on anything that you've said.

We seem to disagree on the nature of what a claim is, what a belief is, and what knowledge is. If you would like to take a counter position to all academic conversation regardimg atheism, that is fine. However, you would do better to read up on those that have came before you.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Gods are nothing more or less than the creations of man's imaginings. As such I will assert that no gods exist.
Likewise, I will assert that Santa Claus does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Easter Bunny does not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that psychic snowflakes do not exist.
Likewise, I will assert that the Cottingley Fairies do not exist.
Mickey Mouse
Superman
Bart Simpson

Need I go on?

Gods may be only the manifestation of a cultural belief, but that in itself does not mean that no Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension. Unless you personally know that no Gods exist on any Universe, or in any dimension, you can't make this assertion. The only claim you can make is that you don't believe that a God(s) exists, because there is no reason to believe that one does. Even I limit my assertion that only the God claim on this earth/universe cannot and does not exist. You can assert anything you want, but you can't prove any of your knowledge claims.

Need you go on? I contend that I believe that fairies exist on planet X37L, in the Orion Belt Constellation. Now prove me wrong? I contend that I believe that the FSM exists on the planet Zarkoff in the 127 Universe. Prove me wrong. And then demonstrate how you know for certain?

My point is, unless you are a God and Omniscient, how can you know for certain that NO GODS EXISTS? You can't. I simply do not believe that a God exists because of the total lack of evidence. And, the overwhelming abundance of evidence that suggests that He doesn't. This is a belief claim, not a knowledge claim. There is a big difference when someone is claiming that he believes that a God exists, and someone claiming that he knows that a God exists. It is the same difference in claiming that that they believe that a God(s) doesn't exist, or claiming that they know that no God(s) exists. Belief claims requires no proof, but certainty claims do.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

We seem to disagree on the nature of what a claim is, what a belief is, and what knowledge is. If you would like to take a counter position to all academic conversation regardimg atheism, that is fine. However, you would do better to read up on those that have came before you.

I appreciate your sincere, although misplaced, concerns about what we seem to disagree on. We are not talking about a counter-position about Atheism, that differs from the position of all academia. We are talking about YOUR definition of NEW ATHEISM, which differs from any definition I have ever read. As far as the giants before me, Matt(Dillahunty), Richard(Dawkins), are friends that I still keep in touch with. The late Christopher Hitchens, was a very close friend. I will always be inspired by his creed; The simple proposition that Skepticism, rather than Credulity, is the highest principle our human intellect can use to ennoble our existence. Lawrence said this as a speaker at his funeral. So I not only have read from the giants before me, but have spoken to them as well.

 

[Curious George]

I appreciate your sincere, although misplaced, concerns about what we seem to disagree on. We are not talking about a counter-position about Atheism, that differs from the position of all academia. We are talking about YOUR definition of NEW ATHEISM, which differs from any definition I have ever read. As far as the giants before me, Matt(Dillahunty), Richard(Dawkins), are friends that I still keep in touch with. The late Christopher Hitchens, was a very close friend. I will always be inspired by his creed; The simple proposition that Skepticism, rather than Credulity, is the highest principle our human intellect can use to ennoble our existence. Lawrence said this as a speaker at his funeral. So I not only have read from the giants before me, but have spoken to them as well.

This is where new atheism began:

"What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... in this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."
​

Infra.

This is not a debated idea, except by you.

A claim is merely a proposition belief. Knowledge is at least justified true belief. As I have stated your assertion that athiesm is the disbelief in god, because of the total lack of evidence to support belief. Holds both a claim regarding all gods existence and reasoning for that claim. Your personal narratives regarding exactly what a psychological state is, what a claim is, what a belief is amd what knowledge is, creates a barrier to our communication. Perhaps you can show mu posts in this thread to your friends and they can explain.


It is apparent to me that you perceive attacks when none are made(as evidenced by your psychological state=mental condition=in need of remedy tangent).

I cannot communicate with someone who does not want to understand my communication. This is not just my definition of atheism or new atheism. This is the logical conclusion and the only reasonable conclusion that comes from evaluating what each position entails.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This is where new atheism began:

"What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from the presumption of atheism, that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist. The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... in this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."
​

Infra.

This is not a debated idea, except by you.

A claim is merely a proposition belief. Knowledge is at least justified true belief. As I have stated your assertion that athiesm is the disbelief in god, because of the total lack of evidence to support belief. Holds both a claim regarding all gods existence and reasoning for that claim. Your personal narratives regarding exactly what a psychological state is, what a claim is, what a belief is amd what knowledge is, creates a barrier to our communication. Perhaps you can show mu posts in this thread to your friends and they can explain.


It is apparent to me that you perceive attacks when none are made(as evidenced by your psychological state=mental condition=in need of remedy tangent).

I cannot communicate with someone who does not want to understand my communication. This is not just my definition of atheism or new atheism. This is the logical conclusion and the only reasonable conclusion that comes from evaluating what each position entails.

It is apparent to me that you perceive attacks when none are made(as evidenced by your psychological state=mental condition=in need of remedy tangent).

Stop trying to imply something that isn't there. Just look up the definition of a Psychological State yourself. You will see both "mental state" and "mental condition" as simply part of the definition.

someone who asserts that there is no such being as God, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively... in this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist."

All Atheists are non-theists. Even the name implies that. All atheists do not believe that a God exists based on the evidence. So what is this new definition of Atheism? How does it compare with the old meaning of Atheism? I contend that there is no new definition of Atheism. There is only a new application of Atheism. It is no longer hidden in the closet. These few brave giants are the ones trying to educate people, not confuse them. They let free thinkers and non-believers know, that they are not alone. They are not focused on refining definitions and terminologies. These are the real new Atheists.

I spend a lot of time making my posts as simple and as clear as I can. Since you are the one posting the ideas about Atheism, I can only assume that you actually agree with them. Therefore, stating that they are not your ideas is irrelevant. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own logic. I think that it is best that we simply agree to disagree.

 

[Curious George]

Stop trying to imply something that isn't there. Just look up the definition of a Psychological State yourself. You will see both "mental state" and "mental condition" as simply part of the definition.

Your whole rant that I was somehow suggesting--that new atheists choice to define atheism as a psycholigical state implied that it was a mental condition that needed fixing--wasn't there?

I can assure you it was. Reread your posts.

All Atheists are non-theists.

But the definition of atheists as only this is what brands new atheism. It is what shifts the classical atheist definition of atheism as making a claim to the new atheist definition as a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a claim, it is descriptive of a psychological state.

Even the name implies that. All atheists do not believe that a God exists based on the evidence. So what is this new definition of Atheism? How does it compare with the old meaning of Atheism?

That is the new definition of atheism. It is the placement of the negation:

Believing not god
Became
Not believing god

I contend that there is no new definition of Atheism.

You can contend all you want but until you provide evidemce and rationale, you are speculating.

I gave ypu Flew's quote regarding the definition of atheism amd how it was changed. That quote clearly indicates the change. If you want to hold that what Flew regarded as the conventional definition of Atheism was not conventional, then by all means provide a quote that suggests otherwise.

There is only a new application of Atheism. It is no longer hidden in the closet. These few brave giants are the ones trying to educate people, not confuse them. They let free thinkers and non-believers know, that they are not alone. They are not focused on refining definitions and terminologies. These are the real new Atheists.

I am sorry you haven't read atheist thinkers who wrote prior to these "brave giants."

I spend a lot of time making my posts as simple and as clear as I can. Since you are the one posting the ideas about Atheism, I can only assume that you actually agree with them. Therefore, stating that they are not your ideas is irrelevant.

For someone who spends the time making their posts clear, you sure did gloss over the word "just."

Of course the ideas I espouse are my own. However they are not just my own.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own logic. I think that it is best that we simply agree to disagree.

This is not the implementation of my "own logic." There is no other reasonable interpretation than atheists defined by their lack of belief defines atheism as a psychological state.

This contrasts with other definitions of atheism which define atheist as making a claim.

 

[ecco]

Gods may be only the manifestation of a cultural belief, but that in itself does not mean that no Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension. Unless you personally know that no Gods exist on any Universe, or in any dimension, you can't make this assertion.

Theological nonsense.

The only claim you can make is that you don't believe that a God(s) exists, because there is no reason to believe that one does. Even I limit my assertion that only the God claim on this earth/universe cannot and does not exist. You can assert anything you want, but you can't prove any of your knowledge claims.

Science isn't about proof. Science is about evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. You are parroting the creationist standpoint: Evolution is not proven, therefore evolution is wrong.

Need you go on? I contend that I believe that fairies exist on planet X37L, in the Orion Belt Constellation. Now prove me wrong? I contend that I believe that the FSM exists on the planet Zarkoff in the 127 Universe. Prove me wrong. And then demonstrate how you know for certain?

I'll bet on any other subject you would be asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person making outlandish claims. Ask yourself why you make exceptions when it comes to the word "god".

My point is, unless you are a God and Omniscient, how can you know for certain that NO GODS EXISTS? You can't. I simply do not believe that a God exists because of the total lack of evidence. And, the overwhelming abundance of evidence that suggests that He doesn't. This is a belief claim, not a knowledge claim. There is a big difference when someone is claiming that he believes that a God exists, and someone claiming that he knows that a God exists. It is the same difference in claiming that that they believe that a God(s) doesn't exist, or claiming that they know that no God(s) exists. Belief claims requires no proof, but certainty claims do.

What is a god? Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Nothing more or less. You know that as well as I do. Superman defies the laws of nature. I can definitively state that Superman does not exist. There is no need for me to prove that. You know that as well as I do.

That you, and others, make comments like "unless you are a God and Omniscient, how can you know for certain that NO GODS EXISTS?" is just indicative of how deeply the god concept is rooted in our brains.

That doesn't mean there is any truth to gods. That doesn't mean I have to be a god in order to know that there are no gods.

 

[`mud]

It all boils down to the fear of the beliefs themselves doesn't it ?
What happens if there are `gods`, they all play it safe in beliefs !

 

[`mud]

No-one here, or anywhere, will ever know the results of these wonderings !
Sad it is, but true, in spite of one's tortured beliefs. The spirit knows !
I think....but one never knows for sure.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Your whole rant that I was somehow suggesting--that new atheists choice to define atheism as a psycholigical state implied that it was a mental condition that needed fixing--wasn't there?

I can assure you it was. Reread your posts.


But the definition of atheists as only this is what brands new atheism. It is what shifts the classical atheist definition of atheism as making a claim to the new atheist definition as a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a claim, it is descriptive of a psychological state.


That is the new definition of atheism. It is the placement of the negation:

Believing not god
Became
Not believing god


You can contend all you want but until you provide evidemce and rationale, you are speculating.

I gave ypu Flew's quote regarding the definition of atheism amd how it was changed. That quote clearly indicates the change. If you want to hold that what Flew regarded as the conventional definition of Atheism was not conventional, then by all means provide a quote that suggests otherwise.


I am sorry you haven't read atheist thinkers who wrote prior to these "brave giants."


For someone who spends the time making their posts clear, you sure did gloss over the word "just."

Of course the ideas I espouse are my own. However they are not just my own.

This is not the implementation of my "own logic." There is no other reasonable interpretation than atheists defined by their lack of belief defines atheism as a psychological state.

This contrasts with other definitions of atheism which define atheist as making a claim.

This is the last time I will try to state my position as clearly as I can. You deposited two ideas. Both I disagreed with, and have clearly explained why. The first idea was that Old Atheism and New Atheism are defined differently(not New and Old Atheists). The second idea was that, "Classical Atheism is simply making the claim that no god exists. New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods". Lets start with the first. Old Atheism, and later New Atheism. Remember you are only talking about someone personal interpretation of Atheism.

Old Atheism:

What is Atheism? | American Atheists (American Atheists)
What is atheism? (Religious Site)
BBC - Religions - Atheism: At a glance (BBC Site)
atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to Agnosticism (Encyclopedia Britannica, updated oct. 15, 2018)

New Atheism:

New Atheism - Wikipedia (Wikipedia)
The new atheists are not atheist enough (Academic Site)
What is the New Atheism? (Religious Site)

(You tube Site)

Nowhere in any of the sites is Atheism defined as "the psychological state of lacking belief". Nowhere is the difference between Old and New Atheism defined as not being a Theists. Every site describes New Atheism only in its application. New Atheists are described as being militant, insensitive, disrespectful, arrogant, and apathetic. Which clearly supports my logical conclusion, that the Old Atheism was more introverted, and the New Atheism is more extroverted. I can't understand why this is so difficult. An Atheist is a person that doesn't believe that a God(s) exists. His belief is totally contingent on the absence of objective evidence. No evidence no God. Since New and Old Atheist are both non-Theists, how is this defined as a difference? This is a belief claim. Making the claim that NO GODS EXISTS is a certainty, truth, and knowledge claim. Can you prove or demonstrate this claim? Of course not, no one can. I personally believe that no Gods exist in my reality(Universe), but I don't have a clue if a God exists in another reality(Universe).

The other problem was your defining New Atheism as a psychological state. The problem with characterizing the lack of a belief in a God, as a psychological state, is that you didn't expand on the nature of this state. Is this state stable, well-balanced, delusional, or just messed-up? Remember, a psychological state is also a mental state. Using words like mind-set, frame of mind, or a personal perspective, all have a less negative connotation than a Psychological/Mental State. If you can't see how having this state can be misinterpreted, then it is deliberate.

psychological state (Free Dictionary)
What does psychological state mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary) (Audio English)
Category:Psychological states - Wikipedia (Wikipedia)

In summary, you have NOT presented a clear definition of Atheism itself, and how it differs from this New Atheism. Both don't belief that a God exists, and both are non-Theists. You also have not stated the significance of this Psychological State of non-belief. The term New Atheism was coined by a journalist, not Flew. Many of the early philosophers put Atheist in jails, and only the slaves were allowed to attend to their needs. Did you know that a man was put in jail for his Atheistic remarks, IN RUSSIA, during a webchat?

Russian atheist faces year in jail for denying existence of God during webchat

If you can't understand my position now, I JUST don't know what else I can say to be more clearer. So can we just agree to disagree? I really don't want to listen to all the upcoming insinuations, denials, or my inability to comprehend.

 

[lukethethird]

Who cares if gods exist or not?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Theological nonsense.



Science isn't about proof. Science is about evidence. The overwhelming evidence is that gods are the creations of man's imaginings. You are parroting the creationist standpoint: Evolution is not proven, therefore evolution is wrong.




I'll bet on any other subject you would be asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person making outlandish claims. Ask yourself why you make exceptions when it comes to the word "god".




What is a god? Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Nothing more or less. You know that as well as I do. Superman defies the laws of nature. I can definitively state that Superman does not exist. There is no need for me to prove that. You know that as well as I do.

That you, and others, make comments like "unless you are a God and Omniscient, how can you know for certain that NO GODS EXISTS?" is just indicative of how deeply the god concept is rooted in our brains.

That doesn't mean there is any truth to gods. That doesn't mean I have to be a god in order to know that there are no gods.

I have heard your rants and your insults. So let us be clear. It is your claim that No God(s) Exists, or can exist anywhere? Not that you simply don't believe that a God(s) exists?

 

[lukethethird]

I have heard your rants and your insults. So let us be clear. It is your claim that No God(s) Exists, or can exist anywhere? Not that you simply don't believe that a God(s) exists?

What do you say we split hairs and call it a day.