The idol of atheism, or hardest proof ever?

[questfortruth]

Atheists cannot blaspheme.

Theists can. Atheists can not. Are atheists perfect saints destined for Heaven? I see why neo-atheism is gaining popularity: the shortest way to bliss.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

You know, when you copy paste someone's post, perhaps include a link.

Sense of the Atheism

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"?

As I told you in that same thread, it is not.
And you just quoted how it's not.

It's just "i don't believe you" when you make a god claim.

But it was the creed of original atheism

I can only tell you what my position is today.

They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

I reject all god claims that have been put to me so far, because none of them could be sufficiently demonstrated to warrant belief.

That includes yours.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

I was looking for a facepalm meme, but frankly the only one that expresses how I really felt when I read that, would likely get me banned.

So I'll just stick to classic

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

I don't even know how to respond to this.
Frankly I'm questioning your sanity at this point.

 

[ChristineM]

Why don't atheists like being accused of blasphemy? After all, they begin to argue, they say: "since there is no God, we cannot blaspheme Him, we only blaspheme the faith, not God." Maybe the faith of their ancestors still flickers in them?

Blasphemy is irrelevant except to believers who get terribly upset when facts pop their bubble

 

[Regiomontanus]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"? But it was the creed of original atheism. They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

You might think: "not a false one, the same one as we have; only atheists do not need Him, they do not see Him and do not want to see."

No, we have different gods: "your father is the devil" (Jesus Christ). There is nothing in common between good and evil, there is not even a common God. Here is the pagan character Loki - an attempt to create a common god between good and evil. But semi-good is evil. "Idol Loki is a trickster" (YouTube). Loki expresses the state of a savvy person who lives according to the principle: serve all masters: feel fun on Earth today and go into Paradise after death.

It is not God who does not want to be proven, but it is people who do not want to be convinced by the proofs.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Somebody could ask: "And the one who knows everything, knows how to learn something new?"

This is not a question, but a statement, which says in short: "There is no God."

The expression "Who created God?" is not a question, but the statement: "There is no God", expressed differently, but also popular.

Also, the question "Can God create a stone that He cannot lift" is not a question, but a statement: "There is no God."

iT IS BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of the "Absence" of God, and cannot be even in principle.

It is clear to me that many people here, when attacking the Creator, are, more often than not, really rejecting a caricature, a cartoon version of God - that old man in the sky. And of course (as you and I both know, I think) the apophatic concept of God, especially in the Eastern Orthodox view, couldn't be more different than that silliness. The true nature of God is way beyond our finite minds being able to comprehend. God is the ground of being, not *a* being.

/tangent off

 

[Nakosis]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"? But it was the creed of original atheism. They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

You might think: "not a false one, the same one as we have; only atheists do not need Him, they do not see Him and do not want to see."

No, we have different gods: "your father is the devil" (Jesus Christ). There is nothing in common between good and evil, there is not even a common God. Here is the pagan character Loki - an attempt to create a common god between good and evil. But semi-good is evil. "Idol Loki is a trickster" (YouTube). Loki expresses the state of a savvy person who lives according to the principle: serve all masters: feel fun on Earth today and go into Paradise after death.

It is not God who does not want to be proven, but it is people who do not want to be convinced by the proofs.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Somebody could ask: "And the one who knows everything, knows how to learn something new?"

This is not a question, but a statement, which says in short: "There is no God."

The expression "Who created God?" is not a question, but the statement: "There is no God", expressed differently, but also popular.

Also, the question "Can God create a stone that He cannot lift" is not a question, but a statement: "There is no God."

iT IS BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of the "Absence" of God, and cannot be even in principle.

I suspect the time of the neoatheist has come and gone. Their "God" was financial wealth i.e. dollar/pound etc.
Neoatheism sold books and got lecture gigs. A few still trying to make a living on Youtube. Seems pretty quiet relatively.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please clarify.

Bishop Anselm claimed that God is the greatest thing that can be conceived, but that a god that existed only in the mind would not be as great as a god that actually existed. Therefore God must exist in order to be the greatest thing that can be conceived.

This argument falls apart by changing God to coffee: do you prefer coffee or existing coffee? You see, these are exactly the same thing, because coffee that does not exist is no coffee at all. Existence is not a predicate: it is not something that is a feature of anything. The non-existent rock is not a rock. It may be an idea, but it is not a rock. And there is nothing at all to say that a rock is in any way "greater" than the idea of a rock.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please clarify.

To continue, you have merely replaced "existence is great than non-existence" with some nonsense about "knowing." And to be clear, a thing (let's not call it "God" for a moment, shall we?) that "knows everything" would, if God did not exist, know it, just as easily as the case you claim that it if God did exist, it would also know it. You did not, however, present any means of establishing which might be true, and therefore which it "knows."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why don't atheists like being accused of blasphemy? After all, they begin to argue, they say: "since there is no God, we cannot blaspheme Him, we only blaspheme the faith, not God." Maybe the faith of their ancestors still flickers in them?

For some atheists they have reason to be unhappy with such accusations.
A Pakistani atheist hearing such calls might find them paired with very real physical consequences.

But for the most part you're talking about a strawman you've built. I could give a rat's left cracker about being called a 'blasphemer', for example. Despite the faith of not just 'my ancestors' but also my immediate family.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why don't atheists like being accused of blasphemy? After all, they begin to argue, they say: "since there is no God, we cannot blaspheme Him, we only blaspheme the faith, not God." Maybe the faith of their ancestors still flickers in them?

I like being called a blaspheme, because that is from God. God is a blaspheme or everything is not from God.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Theists can. Atheists can not. Are atheists perfect saints destined for Heaven? I see why neo-atheism is gaining popularity: the shortest way to bliss.

You claim to be a logical thinker, and yet you still cannot see how illogical is a question like "are atheists destined for Heaven?" You are trapped in your own paradigm and cannot conceive outside of it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

WHAT DOES THE NEO-ATHEISM REJECT?

Q: Atheism is not a doctrine. Theism is the doctrine. Atheism is the rejection of that doctrine. It's not a doctrine by itself. It means that when a theist claims "God exists!", that the atheist then replies "I don't believe you". Or when the theist asks "do you believe in god?" the atheist answers "no". That's about it. God is not being rejected. The claim that a god exists is being rejected. To "reject god", one would have to believe a god exists first, that there is something there TO reject. This is not the case in atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. Subtle, yet important, difference.

A: Atheism is more complicated when General Relativity. Why not the old simplest creed of disbelief: "No God"? But it was the creed of original atheism. They have the most complicated neo-atheism now.

TRUST MY HIGH EQ AND IQ, that:

1. Atheists do not reject the Real God.
2. Atheists deny their fictitious god, their idol ("old man in the cloud", "one who makes magic tricks"). They have a false god who tells them that he is non-existent. It is the idol-deceiver, an unclean trinity (3=1): satan, death, antichrist.

You might think: "not a false one, the same one as we have; only atheists do not need Him, they do not see Him and do not want to see."

No, we have different gods: "your father is the devil" (Jesus Christ). There is nothing in common between good and evil, there is not even a common God. Here is the pagan character Loki - an attempt to create a common god between good and evil. But semi-good is evil. "Idol Loki is a trickster" (YouTube). Loki expresses the state of a savvy person who lives according to the principle: serve all masters: feel fun on Earth today and go into Paradise after death.

It is not God who does not want to be proven, but it is people who do not want to be convinced by the proofs.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:

A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

Criticism: "if only the being knew, you have used word WOULD."

IF, WOULD - often used in science, in PROOFS. Why is the most severe unfair criticism and nagging applied to God's proofs? "Jesus said to him: you will not believe if you do not see signs and wonders." Jn. 4:48, "Then Abraham said to him: if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then if someone is raised from the dead, they will not believe." (Luke 16: 19-31).

1. Suppose there is a Being who knows everything.

2. Then He knows that God exists.

3. Hence, in all knowledge there is one that God exists.

4. Therefore, our assumption turned out to be correct, and God exists.

SOLUTION TO OMNIPOTENCE PARADOX

Somebody could ask: "And the one who knows everything, knows how to learn something new?"

This is not a question, but a statement, which says in short: "There is no God."

The expression "Who created God?" is not a question, but the statement: "There is no God", expressed differently, but also popular.

Also, the question "Can God create a stone that He cannot lift" is not a question, but a statement: "There is no God."

iT IS BECAUSE THE Reason tells us that there is no proof of the "Absence" of God, and cannot be even in principle.

1. You've cherry picked statements from another member, but listed the as a question. They are not questions.

2. You can't possibly know what atheists 'reject', and don't appear to have listened to any in your previous thread, instead reiterating the same arguments here.

3. I don't trust either your IQ or EQ, and find no reason I should do so.

4. Casting Loki as 'evil' is an over-simplification showing ignorance of Norse mythology, and is driven by a false dichotomy setup by you.

5. The role of trickster God's in myth generally seems misrepresented.

6. Your statements about the Omnipotence Paradox aren't logical. Even were one to accept there is a paradox of omnipotence, it speaks only to God having limits, not to God's existence.

I live in the hope you'll think about and respond to any of my comments here directly and simply. Think of me as an eternal optimist.

 

[questfortruth]

You claim to be a logical thinker, and yet you still cannot see how illogical is a question like "are atheists destined for Heaven?" You are trapped in your own paradigm and cannot conceive outside of it.

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:
A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

It is not just another form of the Anselm argument. I have discovered something new!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't even know how to respond to this.
Frankly I'm questioning your sanity at this point.

What took you so long?

 

[Subduction Zone]

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:
A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

It is not just another form of the Anselm argument. I have discovered something new!

It fails at the first premise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

MY LOGICAL PROOF OF GOD:
A being who would know everything also knows that God exists. Because God is Omniscient. Therefore, among all knowledge, there is also this: "God exists."

It is not just another form of the Anselm argument. I have discovered something new!

Yes, and I am now illogical and act differently than you. All of that is from God.

 

[questfortruth]

Your statements about the Omnipotence Paradox aren't logical. Even were one to accept there is a paradox of omnipotence, it speaks only to God having limits, not to God's existence.

I have logic there:
1. Omnipotence paradox can not be resolved.
2. Thus, it seems, that God is disproven.
3. God can not ever be disproven.
4 Thus, the omnipotence paradox is just re-casting the creed of disbelief: "No God." It adds no additional information to the Status Quo.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have logic there:
1. Omnipotence paradox can not be resolved.
2. Thus, it seems, that God is disproven.
3. God can not ever be disproven.
4 Thus, the omnipotence paradox is just re-casting the creed of disbelief: "No God." It adds no additional information to the Status Quo.

I have the illogical. And it is all from God.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have logic there:
1. Omnipotence paradox can not be resolved.
2. Thus, it seems, that God is disproven.
3. God can not ever be disproven.
4 Thus, the omnipotence paradox is just re-casting the creed of disbelief: "No God." It adds no additional information to the Status Quo.

There are plenty of God concepts that have limits.
Again...this speaks ONLY to an omnipotent God (if that).

Any thought on the rest of the post, or are you just going to ignore everything people say and restate your arguments as if that is compelling?

 

[questfortruth]

are you just going to ignore everything people say and restate your arguments as if that is compelling?

I am sorry if I have done wrong. Please forgive me. Please discuss the thread. I am going to bed now. Good night!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am sorry if I have done wrong. Please forgive me. Please discuss the thread. I am going to bed now. Good night!

Good night. Sleep well.