Question for atheists.

[Twilight Hue]

No introduction. All third party calls.

 

[chinu]

No introduction. All third party calls.

What ?
What do you mean by no no introduction. all third party calls ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think differently for different peoples/atheists... as they think.
But.. what makes YOU sure that there isn't any God, only YOU can tell me.

So if you think we all think differently, why are you saying that I would say I'm sure that there isn't any God? I haven't said that, nor would I say that. That's like me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife?"

 

[chinu]

So if you think we all think differently, why are you saying that I would say I'm sure that there isn't any God? I haven't said that, nor would I say that. That's like me asking you "When did you stop beating your wife?"

OP says, its the question for Atheists.
And atheist mean the one who is SURE that there isn't any God.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OP says, its the question for Atheists.

And I am an atheist.

And atheist mean the one who is SURE that there isn't any God.

No it doesn't. It means a person who doesn't believe that there is a God. There's a difference.

 

[chinu]

No it doesn't. It means a person who doesn't believe that there is a God. There's a difference.

Why aren't they SURE? what is worng with saying; that we are SURE ? tell me..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why aren't they SURE, what is worng with saying; that we are SURE ? tell me..

For the same reason asking theists "How do you KNOW that there is a God?"

There are lots of theists who wouldn't claim to KNOW that there is a God, just as I would never claim to be sure that there isn't a God. My position is very simple: I don't believe there is a God, but I don't claim to know, or "be sure", that there ISN'T a God. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation of my position on the matter to ask me "why are you sure there isn't a God?"

It would be like me asking you "Why did you decide to worship satan?" The question is based on presuming what you profess to believe.

 

[chinu]

For the same reason asking theists "How do you KNOW that there is a God?"

There are lots of theists who wouldn't claim to KNOW that there is a God, just as I would never claim to be sure that there isn't a God. My position is very simple: I don't believe there is a God, but I don't claim to know, or "be sure", that there ISN'T a God. Therefore, it is a misrepresentation of my position on the matter to ask me "why are you sure there isn't a God?"

It would be like me asking you "Why did you decide to worship satan?" The question is based on presuming what you profess to believe.

You are an intelligent person, Immortal.
Just say, if any boy is wearing girls dress, can he become a girl ? :no:
Similarly, if any girl is wearing boys dress, can she bemcome a boy ? :no:

One is atheist, or one is thiest, it all depends on their behaviour towards god, it doesn't depend on how they are lebelling (clothing) themselves, isn't it ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are an intelligent person, Immortal.
Just say, if any boy is wearing girls dress, can he become a girl ? :no:
Similarly, if any girl is wearing boys dress, can she bemcome a boy ? :no:

One is atheist, or one is thiest, it all depends on their behaviour towards god, it doesn't depend on how they are lebelling (clothing) themselves, isn't it ?

In a way, I agree with you. There are lots of people who I would consider atheists who don't consider themselves atheists - it's all a matter of differing interpretations and definitions. I tend to use the broadest definition of atheism, which is simply "absence of belief in a God or Gods", but can usually pair it down to "rejection of belief in a God or Gods" for more practical discussions. In the case of your question, I would say it only really applies to a specific subset of atheists, and would not apply to the majority of atheists - myself included.

Nevertheless, I think the best answer those atheists could give you would be another question: What makes you sure that there is no Loch Ness Monster? (if, indeed, you would claim that. If not, name something you are sure of the nonexistence of and we can use that as part of the question instead)

 

[Sunstone]

Chinu, how sure are you there's not an undetectable dragon farting invisible rainbows in your garden?

 

[chinu]

Chinu, how sure are you there's not an undetectable dragon farting invisible rainbows in your garden?

That because i have no gardens.

 

[chinu]

In the case of your question, I would say it only really applies to a specific subset of atheists, and would not apply to the majority of atheists - myself included.

Thus.. those who think that they belong to a this specific subset of atheists will respond to my question, and others (like you) will make me clear that how they don't belong to this specific subset of atheists.

Nevertheless, I think the best answer those atheists could give you would be another question: What makes you sure that there is no Loch Ness Monster?

I'll simply say them, that i don't know what is monster ? will you tell me please..

 

[Twilight Hue]

What ?
What do you mean by no no introduction. all third party calls ?

Never met any deity.

People who claim otherwise are hopelessly stuck in a capacity of representation, of which in question, whom or what they represent never manifests. Strongly suggesting it's really just people all along.

 

[Sunstone]

That because i have no gardens.

Too cute.

 

[chinu]

Too cute.

Like atheists, isn't it ?

 

[chinu]

Never met any deity.

Which kind of deity do you expect to meet ? tell me..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thus.. those who think that they belong to a this specific subset of atheists will respond to my question, and others (like you) will make me clear that how they don't belong to this specific subset of atheists.

Exactly. I like to be clear one what people's definitions are before getting into a discussion.

I'll simply say them, that i don't know what is monster ? will you tell me please..

Ah, I should have known the Loch Ness Monster isn't really well known globally. Here's a wiki page about the creature:

Loch Ness Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[chinu]

Exactly. I like to be clear one what people's definitions are before getting into a discussion.

You mean one should clear the type of atheists in the starting of post ? or there should be seperate sections for different type of atheists ?

Ah, I should have known the Loch Ness Monster isn't really well known globally. Here's a wiki page about the creature

But, before continueing i just want to know that what do we call the people who believe in this thing ?

 

[LuisDantas]

Question for atheists.
What makes you SURE that there's isn't any God ?

It is not so much that I am sure that there is no God (although I guess I am) as that I am indifferent to its hypothetical existence and disapprove of the insistence that it must exist.

I'm only quite completely certain about Abrahamic-like versions, actually.

My standard argument is basically the reversal of the Ontological Argument and the decisive dismissal of the Five Proofs of Aquinas and of Pascal's Wager.

Most people who tell me that God must exist also tell me that he is rather faulty, to the point that it is no big challenge to think of people more virtuous (albeit less powerful) than God. Therefore, the Ontological Argument holds no water for me.

Aquinas does not even attempt to prove that God exists, but instead makes an impressive statement that he needs to believe in God. Fine, but that is no reason for me to emulate him.

Pascal's Wager is not worthy of serious consideration at all. It disrespects Theists by comparing God to a warlord of a Mafia "Capo" that must be feared even if it takes pretending respect for him.

 

[chinu]

It is not so much that I am sure that there is no God (although I guess I am) as that I am indifferent to its hypothetical existence and disapprove of the insistence that it must exist.

I'm only quite completely certain about Abrahamic-like versions, actually.

My standard argument is basically the reversal of the Ontological Argument and the decisive dismissal of the Five Proofs of Aquinas and of Pascal's Wager.

Most people who tell me that God must exist also tell me that he is rather faulty, to the point that it is no big challenge to think of people more virtuous (albeit less powerful) than God. Therefore, the Ontological Argument holds no water for me.

Aquinas does not even attempt to prove that God exists, but instead makes an impressive statement that he needs to believe in God. Fine, but that is no reason for me to emulate him.

Pascal's Wager is not worthy of serious consideration at all. It disrespects Theists by comparing God to a warlord of a Mafia "Capo" that must be feared even if it takes pretending respect for him.

Thus.. you are something inbetween SURE and REJECT,
Is it ok to say, it's something inbetween atheism and theism ? if no, than why ?