Do Atheist Still Believe in God?

originally posted by: Annee


Where did I say "don't believe"?

Lack of belief is "lack of belief"?

Lack of belief in what?

What is this GOD, of which there is lack of belief?

To say you don't believe in a thing, implies you've understood what is the thing.

Apart for just writing down the three letters G.O.D., what is it?

If I say to you, GOD is your Father, are you saying you don't believe in your Dad?

You must have some idea of GOD, before you can express a lack of belief in him.

Once you try to define this GOD, you may discover you actually believe in him, you just haven't given it much thought.

The real meaning of Agnostic is: "God can not be proven or dis-proven".

An atheist is agnostic.

There's no dictionary on earth that make "atheist" and "agnostic" synonyms.

YOU prove God - - factually, scientifically. Then we'll talk.

The Theists who believe in God, don't need to prove him to anyone. It's a belief.
The Agnostics who say they don't know, need a proof to believe, at least they understand what it is they don't know.

But, the Atheist claims to know what is GOD, and according to them, there's no such thing as GOD.

This is the point I'm making, the Atheist is making false claims.

You can't know anything about something that doesn't even exist.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee
NO. Atheist means LACK OF BELIEF IN A GOD/DEITY.

The word Atheist has no meaning.

A Theist believes in the existence of god.
An Agnostic says he doesn't know whether god exists or not.

But, what exactly is an Atheist?

How could anyone not believe in something which they don't believe exists?

Now, you could say, "I believe God exists, but I don't believe in him."

But, that's not what an Atheist claims.

The Atheist, paradoxically, claims to know what is God, and declares further that there is no such thing as God.

But, if you ask any Atheist to explain what is this God that doesn't exist, they can't describe that God.

They can only repeat the phrase "God doesn't exist."

But, they can't say what God is.

So, then the question is, how can anyone deny the existence of something which they are unable to describe?

See the point?

Only Theists and Agnostics are honest.

Atheists are all deceivers.

There really is no such thing as atheist. It's a contradiction.

To claim something doesn't exist, you must be able to describe that thing.

But if it doesn't exist, there's no description possible.

Therefore the claims of Atheists are all meaningless.

That's why they sweat, when asked the questions.

That is why i describe atheism as a disbelief in the claims of theists that gods exist. I wish more atheists took this position instead of disbelief in god.

I have never “sweat” over any line of questioning. You may ask me anything.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee


Where did I say "don't believe"?

Lack of belief is "lack of belief"?

Lack of belief in what?

What is this GOD, of which there is lack of belief?

To say you don't believe in a thing, implies you've understood what is the thing.

Apart for just writing down the three letters G.O.D., what is it?

If I say to you, GOD is your Father, are you saying you don't believe in your Dad?

You must have some idea of GOD, before you can express a lack of belief in him.

Once you try to define this GOD, you may discover you actually believe in him, you just haven't given it much thought.

The real meaning of Agnostic is: "God can not be proven or dis-proven".

An atheist is agnostic.

There's no dictionary on earth that make "atheist" and "agnostic" synonyms.

YOU prove God - - factually, scientifically. Then we'll talk.

The Theists who believe in God, don't need to prove him to anyone. It's a belief.
The Agnostics who say they don't know, need a proof to believe, at least they understand what it is they don't know.

But, the Atheist claims to know what is GOD, and according to them, there's no such thing as GOD.

This is the point I'm making, the Atheist is making false claims.

You can't know anything about something that doesn't even exist.

You clearly adjust your reading to fit what you want something to say - - - even though it does not say that.

An atheist makes no claim - - yet you choose to think so.

This is of your own mind. It is not what has been explained to you.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
That is why i describe atheism as a disbelief in the claims of theists that gods exist. I wish more atheists took this position instead of disbelief in god.

Lack of belief.

Is NOT disbelief.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well your not giving me any compelling reasons to take you seriously.

That's the point.

There are no reasons to take anyone seriously.
It's like asking which toddler is the best at quantum physics.

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

WHAT?!?!?

Talk about irrational rationalization.

Atheism is not complicated. It's simple. Lack of belief in a God/Deity.

You All, keep trying to complicate it. That is never going to work.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Woodcarver
That is why i describe atheism as a disbelief in the claims of theists that gods exist. I wish more atheists took this position instead of disbelief in god.

Lack of belief.

Is NOT disbelief.

I understand that, but i see many theists lose the plot over this subtle distinction. This is what i meant earlier when i said that it’s hard for theists to fathom that we really don’t believe. They always bring the convo back to “lack of belief means denial of god”.

They literally see no difference because they just think you believe in god but deny him because “your angry at him”.

I have been pushing for this change in the definition for a long time to put the emphasis on our disbelief of their claim, instead of disbelief in god. They get all hung up and i find it counter productive to moving the convo forward. I think it disarms them a bit when you force them to prove their claims and why they believe these things.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Woodcarver
That is why i describe atheism as a disbelief in the claims of theists that gods exist. I wish more atheists took this position instead of disbelief in god.

Lack of belief.

Is NOT disbelief.

I understand that, but i see many theists lose the plot over this subtle distinction. This is what i meant earlier when i said that it’s hard for theists to fathom that we really don’t believe. They always bring the convo back to “lack of belief means denial of god”.

They literally see no difference because they just think you believe in god but deny him because “your angry at him”.

I have been pushing for this change in the definition for a long time to put the emphasis on our disbelief of their claim, instead of disbelief in god. They get all hung up and i find it counter productive to moving the convo forward. I think it disarms them a bit when you force them to prove their claims and why they believe these things.

OK.

As I just posted above - - - it is NOT complicated.

It is simple. Lack of belief. Nothing more.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well your not giving me any compelling reasons to take you seriously.

That's the point.

There are no reasons to take anyone seriously.
It's like asking which toddler is the best at quantum physics.

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

I love hitchens but he is not the authority on the history aspect. It is clear that jesus is a conglomeration of stories about many different people from different cultures.

originally posted by: Annee

Atheism is not complicated. It's simple. Lack of belief in a God/Deity.

You All, keep trying to complicate it.

Nobody is trying to complicate anything.

You use the word GOD.

What is it?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well your not giving me any compelling reasons to take you seriously.

That's the point.

There are no reasons to take anyone seriously.
It's like asking which toddler is the best at quantum physics.

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

I love hitchens but he is not the authority on the history aspect. It is clear that jesus is a conglomeration of people from different cultures.

Well, yeah.

Jesus was as common a name as John back then.

There is actually a man, historians believe was the Jesus the myth was built on.

But, the reality of that Jesus, is not the "myth" Jesus.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

WHAT?!?!?

Talk about irrational rationalization.

Atheism is not complicated. It's simple. Lack of belief in a God/Deity.

You All, keep trying to complicate it. That is never going to work.

You've misunderstood me.



This is what convinced me of JC's existence.
3mins in is the money shot.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Annee

Atheism is not complicated. It's simple. Lack of belief in a God/Deity.

You All, keep trying to complicate it.

Nobody is trying to complicate anything.

You use the word GOD.

What is it?

I do not use the word God. It is the word used in this discussion by challengers of those who "Lack belief" - - - in what they themselves believe.

deity A deity is a supernatural being, like a god or goddess, that is worshipped by people who believe it controls or exerts force over some aspect of the world. The word deity means "divine nature." It was coined by Saint Augustine, a theologian whose writings were very influential in the shaping of Western Christianity. Deity comes from the Latin word for "god": deus. The divine nature of deities is believed to be immortal goodness and powerfulness. www.vocabulary.com...

I agree Atheism is simple... No beginning, no end, no afterlife, no deity, no nothing... Just what you see in front of you...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well your not giving me any compelling reasons to take you seriously.

That's the point.

There are no reasons to take anyone seriously.
It's like asking which toddler is the best at quantum physics.

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

I love hitchens but he is not the authority on the history aspect. It is clear that jesus is a conglomeration of people from different cultures.

Well, yeah.

Jesus was as common a name as John back then.

There is actually a man, historians believe was the Jesus the myth was built on.

But, the reality of that Jesus, is not the "myth" Jesus.

there is no single person they can point to outside of the biblical stories. In fact many of the stories that didn’t make it into the bible were because they spelled jesus differently or they called him joseph and other names. The stories were similar but the actual name was different. If there were a single person they could point to, then i would be happy to concede but even religious biblical scholars can’t do that. There were many people named jesus with stories that were recorded, but they don’t attribute those stories to the mythos jesus. It’s all quite fascinating i think.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Christopher Hitchens is a character for sure.

He represents only himself and his ideas.

That is called his personal Atheist Philosophy.

Beyond Lack of Belief in a God/Deity - - - atheists are individuals. There is only a single connecting thread - - and that is Lack of Belief in a God/Deity.

Atheists argue all the time. Each has their own philosophy.

Again - - - beyond Lack of Belief in a God/Deity - - - no one atheist represents the philosophy of all. They are individuals.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well your not giving me any compelling reasons to take you seriously.

That's the point.

There are no reasons to take anyone seriously.
It's like asking which toddler is the best at quantum physics.

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

I love hitchens but he is not the authority on the history aspect. It is clear that jesus is a conglomeration of stories about many different people from different cultures.

Absolutely!!!
Anyone claiming authority should be ignored as a matter of principle.

I think he was a real person who had many silly stories stuck to him.
It's possible that it's complete fiction, it makes more sense to me that it was ficttionalised over time however.

I'm just saying what I think, and why I think it.
I could very easily be wrong.

There is more eye witness testimony for Elvis surviving death than Jesus.
Neither are convincing.

originally posted by: Annee
Again - - - beyond Lack of Belief in a God/Deity - - - no one atheist represents the philosophy of all. They are individuals.

I agree with you 100%.

What made you think I thought otherwise.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Annee
Again - - - beyond Lack of Belief in a God/Deity - - - no one atheist represents the philosophy of all. They are individuals.

I agree with you 100%.

What made you think I thought otherwise.

Too many threads like this since I signed on in 2007.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well your not giving me any compelling reasons to take you seriously.

That's the point.

There are no reasons to take anyone seriously.
It's like asking which toddler is the best at quantum physics.

As for JC, Christopher Hitchens convinced me he was a real person. There seems to be clear manipulation of the story which wouldn't be needed if it was entirely fictional.

I love hitchens but he is not the authority on the history aspect. It is clear that jesus is a conglomeration of stories about many different people from different cultures.

Absolutely!!!
Anyone claiming authority should be ignored as a matter of principle.

I think he was a real person who had many silly stories stuck to him.
It's possible that it's complete fiction, it makes more sense to me that it was ficttionalised over time however.

I'm just saying what I think, and why I think it.
I could very easily be wrong.

There is more eye witness testimony for Elvis surviving death than Jesus.
Neither are convincing.

It is known that many stories that share the same events and some are even word for word but they show up hundreds of years earlier and thousands of miles away. They can trace these cultures by digging up their remains and dating them and how these stories traveled from hindu, to budhist, to the middle east. Bramha and saraswati became abraham and sara. With many versions in between. Utnapistjim becomes noah with 500 years in between them. Joseph becomes jesus.