Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

[Xelasnave.1947]

Self inflicted - unless you wish to tell him how to think

I would not presume to tell Jan how to think these days..
He needs to do that all by himself...

I have in the past but that was wrong of me.

Jan has his belief and that stands in the way of his thinking no doubt.

I just think we should be more compassionate and try to understand how it must be for him.

You were fortunate to have a grandmother who put you straight but not all kids have folk close to them that will call religion out even if they dont believe it themselves... so kids grow up twisted...thinking they will go to hell if they have sex before marriage...think of the stress that alone must cause and how confused folk must get from feeling guilty for a perfectly natural urge and responce.

And what a great way to figure out how hypocracy works...that must be confusing having all these folk saying one thing and living differently.

Then being told someone died to save you..what a nasty nasty guilt trip...well just think how strangly you would view the world.

And to stand by and let someone believe there is another life after you die is just outrageously cruel.

I like Jan because he fights as best he can and avoids getting caught with commenting on things he does not understand..like the meaning of subjective and objective...

And Jan does remain calm so that is good.
I am really sure he means well and sincerely believes that he is helping folk. That is very nice.

He is relatively well spoken so we tend to assume his evasivness is perhaps a cunning ploy when more likely he simply can not answer.

Are you going to China?

That would be wonderful.
I love studying their history although one cant cover much but the little I have learnt is fascinating. They bought the world so much we will always be in their debt.


One wonders why God would not have landed there where they were just so far ahead of the rest of the world...well I dont wonder cause it only happened in the confused minds of bronze age folk but why dont believers ask themselves such a question.
They could write and do science...mmm I think I know why God would not try to fool them...
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I like the way you couch your insults into some kind of compassionate statement.

Sorry Jan reading it again I can see why you could think I was being insulting.

I need a better word than fool ...something softer but implying that others should not encourage you to go on over enthusiastically about your favorite subject.

I think you do care about what I say.

I do Jan.

And I don't think it makes you comfortable.

No I feel pretty comfortable with most things you say.

I think I know where you are coming from.

I have things worked out.

There could be a God but if there is then humans belief that it cares about them specifically is most certainly incorrect and that is easy to demonstrate.

Religions are a con job and are leftovers from early attempts to introduce law to humans.

I know there is something in the brain of humans that enable them to absolutely believe in whatever they focus upon and I have no doubt if you ask God in your brain will create an image so real you will believe there is a God.
I know that you know that although we differ on what is actually going on.

That does not mean there is a God or that scriptures come from a divine source it only means you allow yourself the luxury of make believe...and I know from personal experience that the delussion seems real and that you can believe that there is a God that you talk to and actually answers your prayers.

Thats why I have said in the past that God is real but does not exist.

I talk about enlightenment somewhat casually as if it is a spiratual thing but its not..true enlightenment is in effect being honest with oneself and with others.

My enlightement means I reluctantly accept that a God as humans want it to be does not exist other than in their imagination.

One only has to look at the natural world and its harshness to realise that if it was indeed created the only rules are eat and be eaten kill and be killed breed and get out of the way.

I dont fear death but I can imagine that most humans really do fear death both the pain of the event and their perception of losing stuff.

I can understand if the carrot of life after death in the most perfect place they can imagine is held out most folk will do whatever it takes to buy a ticket.

I have seen this..I have seen a criminal become religious and even admit that he was changing his ways so he could get to heaven.

But I am enlightened and allow honesty to wash all my thoughts so my self esteem wont allow me to con myself or others ... and that feels so good ...that is enlightenment...the capacity to look at the universe and ones insignificance and be honestly happy and at peace.

Jan I know how you feel I think.
I know that to you the God that you believe in is absolutely real in your mind and that it is absolutely inconceivable that feeling you have could be wrong..that is part of the condition..

My understanding is behind my appeal to others not to take advantage of your condition and have you defend your belief.

No one will get anywhere and then folk get frustrated and turn to insulting each other...we all can fall victim to name calling and that is not right.

I know you like discussing God but I see folk using you as a punching bag and you fight well..it was your ability that I noticed and frankly I saw you as a worthy opponent because I thought given that it was you against a clearly intelligent group you handled yourself very well.

But I see things the way I have tried to explain that folk are taking advantage of your ability and belief to entertain themselves.

I like and respect you and I dont like to see you being used.
I think you believe it is the right thing to help folk find the feeling you feel...as hard as it may be to accept it probably is not really right for various reasons which I will avoid setting out here.

But what is this God that atheists lack, and, or, disbelieve in?

That is a very good question Jan and is much more important than perhaps you can realise.

At the risk of generalising I suggest that the God athiests dont believe in when they first start thinking about such things ...is the God of the Old Testament.

That God to an atheist is clearly a human construct and rather a poor attempt to describe the divine.

And when an athiest reads the old testament they find many aspects that are clearly just stories written in times different to today, and attempts by folk of that times to explain their world.

Today those folk would probably be scientists and astronomers benefiting from a greater accumulation of knowledge.

That is the first God an athiest losses belief in.

Next the athiest concludes that the likely hood of there ever being a real Jesus is remote.
They realise the alledged words of Jesus could not be passed by word of mouth in a reliable fashion.

After reading the New Testament the athiest concludes there are some nice ideas and standards to enable one to manage life but again it is made up stuff that offers no evidence that there is a God and the idea that a God sends his Son to get killed and that somehow manages sin for humans etc etc seems so farcical the athiest cant believe there are folk who would believe such...and so the athiest does not believe in the Gods in the bible.

For myself I studied the history of man and so I was able to see the role religion played and how humans invented their Gods.

One sees many versions of Jesus and quickly realises it was a popular presumably then a new age approach and an extention of astrology..12 followers with all these Jesus types beause the Sun (the original God) has 12 constalatuons and again the death and resurrection a direct parrallel with the Suns behaviour as ancients would have observed..The Sun appears to die and then after three days sets off again..death and resurrection...so many Gods did like the real God..the Sun.
So now the athiest understand where the myth came from and how it evolved. ..

So they are the Gods the athiest does not believe in...and from there the athiest realises that if there were indeed some sort of entity that was responsible for creation it clearly does not give a toss about humans and that any human who thinks it does has failed to analyse religions and their history.

To me that is a problem, and beginnings of a good reason to doubt atheism.

Well I hope you understand you need not doubt atheism.
It is real and those who have become athiest often know more about religion than those folk running around full of God and joy.

Most christians I meet have not read the bible which I find strange as given its their word of God would it not be something you would read.

Most christians get the parts their preacher selects which is hopelessly unrepresentative of its content.

Doubting that athiesm is not real would be a case of being dishonest with yourself Jan.

And you probably feel inclined to respond thus because the very idea is so confronting.

As you say your God is all things so I can see why you want athiesm to go away..its a flaw in a perfect world for you..but you should be honest with yourself and treat it as real and that there are many humans and many many different beliefs.
Alex

 

[Capracus]

It's not my personal conception of God.
They are descriptions of God, that still remain whether or not they are believed.

Whether or not the conception of god that you espouse was your personal invention, it is one that you claim to support.

Why is the onus on me to produce evidence?

Do you, like most human beings have standards of proof? Do you believe every assertion that is presented to you?

Why don't you produce reasonable evidence to justify, your lack of belief, and possibly your disbelief?

If I conclude by my personal life experience that God is a mentally deranged psychopath that at any moment could snuff itself out in a fit of depression and end all existence, should that assertion be given the same legitimacy as the one you propose? By your own apparent standard of proof, are you not required to produce evidence that would deny this assertion, and any other you don’t find compelling?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Whether or not the conception of god that you espouse was your personal invention, it is one that you claim to support.

Obviously, but you still haven't explained why I am describing my personal God.
I think it would be best if you explained what you mean by ''personal God''.

Do you, like most human beings have standards of proof? Do you believe every assertion that is presented to you?

Your assuming it is an assertion. Why?

If I conclude by my personal life experience that God is a mentally deranged psychopath that at any moment could snuff itself out in a fit of depression and end all existence, should that assertion be given the same legitimacy as the one you propose? By your own apparent standard of proof, are you not required to produce evidence that would deny this assertion, and any other you don’t find compelling?

Now we are back to your own made up idea of God. Why conclude that? This is a classic case of denial.
I predict you will always do this. As soon as we start talking about God, you will again create a strawman, then seek to destroy that.

Strawmen aside. What do you think God is? Based on what information you have gathered.
And I don't mean gods. I mean the one Almighty God, that is supposed to be the Transcendent Totality. The Supreme Being. The one who brings everything in and out of being.

If you can't talk about God, on that level. Then you're not talking about Goed

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Are you going to China?

Yes 17th to 24th
Message me if like more details

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Apart from your assertion, what about your life could be considered atheist?

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

Tell me something you do, that could be considered atheist. If it is subconscious, so be it.

It sounds like you want atheism to be a religion. I already explained why it isn't.

What I do that's atheist is that I don't believe in God. That's what "atheist" means.

I am well aware that I have much more than that in common with many other atheists. Atheism is more compatible with some worldviews than others. But those extra things are not primarily about atheism, even if atheism has certain implications for them.

What are you trying to get at with your question? What do you do that could be considered theist?

So basically, you don't know enough, to make any decisions about God.

Wrong. Remember you said it was very simple? It is. You don't have to know much to make decisions about God. Theists like yourself get by on faith, not knowledge.

So it's not known. Okay.

Yes. Not by you, not by me.

Why does it?

Why repeat myself? Why don't you go back and read what I wrote on this earlier?

But you don't know.

Not absolutely, no. But then neither of us know many things absolutely.

I have an informed opinion on this particular topic, which is more than I can say for you.

So what are you talking about when you say we know enough about the universe, to rule out God's necessary agency?

I said no such thing.

I asked first.
Are you afraid to talk about God (for a change).

What would you like to talk about?

You've made your choice.
You are so confident in that choice, you say silly things like, we know enough about the universe to know God is not necessary, let alone exists.

I said no such thing, and you're right: that would be silly if I were to say it. Stop making things up.

That's deep-rooted belief.

Not a belief I have, so irrelevant to our discussion.

No it's not.
You use "evidence" as a place holder.

No, I really don't.

Why haven't you responded to the post where I outlined what I would regard as sufficient evidence for God, in response to your question? Why are you ignoring that?

You're making the mistake of thinking you're talking about God. If God Is, there is no, could God be real, or not.

And if God Isn't?

But in answer to your question, I can convince myself that God exists, and because God doesn't show itself, like pots and pans, it doesn't exist. Therefore God would not exist, as far as I was aware.

I can't parse what you wrote there. You said nothing about what would convince you that God isn't real.

Want to try again?

But you believe them, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.

I believe them because I see no reason to take their statements about their own beliefs to be lies, unless there is some evidence of that. Like I said. It has nothing to do with what I believe about God.

Atheism is a close-minded system.

*wry smile* Nice irony, Jan.

James, please don't lie. It's totes unnecessary. Thanks.

Do I need to dig up a few quotes where you said "We're all a part of God"? Did you forget you wrote that (multiple times)?

I doubt very much you were ever a theist, do stall as much as you like. You only confirm my doubt.

Wait a moment. Let me get this straight.

In this thread, you are asserting that atheists do not actually exist. Ergo if you are correct, I am not an atheist. I am, according to your assertion, in fact a theist at heart, right now as I write this.

How can you doubt that I used to be a theist, when you assert that I am, in fact, still one as we speak?

At least aim for some consistency in your argument.

I know that some Christians, aren't theist.

How is that possible?

Verbally, mostly. Sometimes through music.

When you do it verbally, what do you say?

I don't recall saying that, a minute ago.

Do I need to dig up some quotes where you said that your God belief isn't about the evidence, that evidence is something that only atheists are concerned with, and so on? The question of God's existence, you said, is only of concern to atheists, because theists like yourself just know that God Is.

Maybe you ought to read back over a few of your own previous posts to refresh your memory.

A minute ago you said we know enough to rule God's necessity out.

No. You are mistaken. I said that, based on what I know, God does not appear to be necessary.

Do you have any knowledge to add that would tend to suggest that God is necessary? If so, please present your argument.

Really? Is that objectively speaking?

No. That was my opinion. You're still struggling with the whole objective/subjective distinction, aren't you?

Yes you are now, the most faithful.

(Bizarre.)

Your spiritual one.

You'll have to explain, I'm afraid.

I have a spiritual relationship that I don't know about? My soul is playing around with God behind my back? How dare it!

Well, I don't know what you're talking about.
Everything you bring up, is an entire subject matter in and of itself. Yet you just wave it away, like brushing fluff of your jacket.

It's a pity that, with your voluminous knowledge of all these matters, you're only capable of posting one-liners in response to any question asking you to explain one of your assertions.

 

[Capracus]

Obviously, but you still haven't explained why I am describing my personal God.
I think it would be best if you explained what you mean by ''personal God''.

I really don’t care if it’s your personal god or a shared version, whatever it is, it’s the one you personally believe in.

Your assuming it is an assertion. Why?

Because you assert it to be a fact. Whether or not it qualifies as a fact has not been reasonably established by you or anyone else.

Now we are back to your own made up idea of God. Why conclude that? This is a classic case of denial.
I predict you will always do this. As soon as we start talking about God, you will again create a strawman, then seek to destroy that.

By your own logic, unless you could prove otherwise, the example of the god I gave would be as valid or invalid as the one you espouse.

Strawmen aside. What do you think God is? Based on what information you have gathered.

I have no idea what a god is. There isn’t a person that has ever existed that would be qualified to determine the identity of the god you describe. If any entity had the ability to convincingly present the illusion of your god, there is no way you could distinguish it from the ideal you imagine.

And I don't mean gods. I mean the one Almighty God, that is supposed to be the Transcendent Totality. The Supreme Being. The one who brings everything in and out of being.

If you can't talk about God, on that level. Then you're not talking about Goed

See there’s the rub, not everyone thinks that conception of a god is supposed to be. That’s the one you personally subscribe to without reasonable evidence. And when someone else concludes otherwise with at least an equal quality of evidence, you claim they are wrong. Can you explain this logic?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I'm not prejudiced against atheists.
Do real atheists (people who actually don't believe in God) even exist?
Which happens to be the point of the thread.

Atheists (purpose of discussion), think the issue is whether or not God exists, or not.
They look at things that exist, like pots and pans, and think God should exist like that.
Hence when God cannot be produced, in the way pots and pans are produced, they claim, basically, God does not exist.
Although they may put different spins on it, like, there is no evidence, or there is no good reason.
Either way, they lack belief in a strawman, of their own creation, and theists play into their game, unbeknown to themselves.
God Is, may not be very enlightening for the atheist, because there is nothing for the atheist to deny or reject.
They prefer when theists use their strawman god, and use the term God exists. Then the atheist can go into their strawman rant.

jan.

///
There is no point to this thread. The article referred to is a joke despite the stupid title. I suspect a talented satirist is the co-author.

God is means the same as god exists except for people who want to make words mean whatever they want them to mean.
The main issue is whether people can & should believe without good evidence. Next to that is whether god exists. If I have no evidence, I cannot believe. If you cannot or will not explain why you believe, I have no reason to believe you.
It is not a matter of god existing like pots & pans. It is a matter of god existing or not existing & how the heck anyone thinks they know.
You are the king of strawmen & obviously franticly frustrated that anyone dares to not believe what you believe.

<>

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Take it to the next level, Baldeee, cause I'm not going to bite.
I've been down this road with the both of you before, and it usually ends nowhere. Just where you want it to.

jan.

///
Every attempt at discussion with you ends nowhere. Just where you take it.

<>

 

[iceaura]

And I don't mean gods. I mean the one Almighty God, that is supposed to be the Transcendent Totality. The Supreme Being. The one who brings everything in and out of being.

That's one of the major kinds of deity, yes.
Commonly found among the heirs of Abrahamic monotheism, it ranks among the most sophisticated kinds of deity - widely flexible in terms of the economic and cultural arrangements that can incorporate it.

The OP contains a false claim about the non-believers in this kind of deity.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Obviously, but you still haven't explained why I am describing my personal God.
I think it would be best if you explained what you mean by ''personal God''.

Your assuming it is an assertion. Why?

Now we are back to your own made up idea of God. Why conclude that? This is a classic case of denial.
I predict you will always do this. As soon as we start talking about God, you will again create a strawman, then seek to destroy that.

Strawmen aside. What do you think God is? Based on what information you have gathered.

///
Your personal god is simply the god you believe in as opposed to gods others believe in. I think you know that.
You say god is. That is an assertion. That is a claim which you evidently cannot support.
We are & always have been on your own made up idea of god.
It is insane to ask atheists what they think god is while condemning everything they say about it. Atheists actually do not think god is anything but fantasy. When they say god is something, it is based on what theists claim to believe.
If you want me to believe a unicorn exists, it is up to you to explain your unicorn belief rather than me explain what I think your belief is.
Not even UFO believers would try to require others to explain what they think UFOs & aliens are.
It is no one's responsibility to explain why they do not believe something. It is up to the believer to explain why they believe & if they want others to believe, it is up to the believer to support it.
If I am convinced of something, I have no choice but to believe it. If I am not convinced, I have no choice but to not believe.

And I don't mean gods. I mean the one Almighty God, that is supposed to be the Transcendent Totality. The Supreme Being. The one who brings everything in and out of being.
If you can't talk about God, on that level. Then you're not talking about Goed
jan.

///
That is important but not enough by far. If you criticize others' belief or lack of belief, you must fully explain your belief & why you believe it. If you cannot explain more about it & explain why you believe then you are not talking about god.

<>

 

[Michael 345]

Not even UFO believers would try to require others to explain what they think UFOs & aliens are.

You have not bumped into MR?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You have not bumped into MR?

///
Can you refer me to a post where he does that?

<>

 

[Michael 345]

///
Can you refer me to a post where he does that?

<>

Not offhand but it does always seem to be in the background or maybe I misread

If or when I go back to the thread and I note one and I remember to come back here I will let you know

 

[James R]

It is insane to ask atheists what they think god is while condemning everything they say about it. ....
If you want me to believe a unicorn exists, it is up to you to explain your unicorn belief rather than me explain what I think your belief is.
Not even UFO believers would try to require others to explain what they think UFOs & aliens are.
It is no one's responsibility to explain why they do not believe something. It is up to the believer to explain why they believe & if they want others to believe, it is up to the believer to support it.

That's a good point.

Jan spends most of his time telling us all that we have no idea what God is. But then, Jan himself is unable or unwilling to describe his God, either. Here's his latest effort:

I mean the one Almighty God, that is supposed to be the Transcendent Totality. The Supreme Being. The one who brings everything in and out of being.

What are we to take away from this? It's all a bit vague, isn't it? Perhaps I can help.

I suppose "Almighty" means omnipotent. "The Totality" presumably means everything that exists. This probably reflects Jan's notion that you and me and Paris Hilton and that tree over there are all parts of his God.

As for "Transcendent", my dictionary suggests that it means "Exceeding or surpassing usual limits especially in excellence" or possibly "Beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding".

But if the Totality is everything, how can it be Transcendent? How can Everything exceed its boundaries or limits? "Totality" means everything. How can anything exceed Everything? It sounds illogical.

Besides, if Jan equates God with the Totality (i.e. everything that exists), then the universe/multiverse and God are indistinguishable. Are we to understand that Jan worships the universe, then?

"Being" introduces the idea that this Totality is like a person. That is consistent with Jan telling us that we can have a relationship with God. He doesn't talk about that the same way that he would talk about us having a relationship with our houses, for instance. He's not thinking of us relating to the universe as a mostly-inanimate collective, but to a personality. Presumably, Jan's God has plans, desires, likes and dislikes, just like human beings.

"Supreme" tells us that Jan's God is the "greatest in status, authority and/or power". But compared to what? Why is this qualifier necessary? Are there other God-like Beings who are competing with Jan's God for supremacy? Is this why Jan has to specify "one" Almighty God - because he is worried there might be others? It sounds like Jan is trying to talk up his God's importance by giving him titles (witness also all those important-looking Capital Letters). But maybe this is just Jan being insecure about his God.

Jan says that his God "brings everything in and out of being". Does this happen continuously, or are these one-off actions by God? Science suggests, for instance, that energy is conserved in the universe. Is it Jan's contention that his God is continuously creating new energy/mass, or destroying it? It's unclear.

Jan asserts that the atheists here don't know his God. Not surprising if his God is "outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding". The question then arises as to how Jan knows this God. Jan likes to give the impression that he understands his God, but here he is telling us that his God is, by his own definition, beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Not very consistent, is it?

For atheists like myself, of course, the important question is: given Jan's definition of his God, how would we go about testing whether this God is real or a fiction? Are there any hints in the definition that Jan has provided?

"Almighty" doesn't help us, because Jan's God hides himself and his mightiness away from human experimental discovery. We know we can see part of a Totality (I like to call it the universe), but if calling it God is just slapping an extra label on it, then nothing new or useful is added to that idea.

Perhaps we can investigate God's Supremacy. But no. That would require evidence of some activity that God has undertaken, and there don't seem to be any actions that can unequivocally be attributed to Jan's God. That only leaves us looking for things that are brought in and out of being, and conservation of energy appears to be a hurdle there. At best, we have the unproven contention that God created (Is) the universe (Totality), but that's an untestable assumption.

Other questions occur to me that Jan never discusses. If God is a Being, a personality, what does God want? If this God has a relationship with all of us (even us non-existent atheists, according to Jan), what does that involve? Does God communicate with (some of) us? If so, what does it communicate? How are we to recognise God's communications, given that it is obviously not keen on communicating unambiguously?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I really don’t care if it’s your personal god or a shared version, whatever it is, it’s the one you personally believe in.

So you just say what you like, because you don't care? If you don't know what you mean when you describe God, as my personal God, then don't do it. Otherwise I won't know what you're talking about.

Because you assert it to be a fact. Whether or not it qualifies as a fact has not been reasonably established by you or anyone else.

A fact is a thing that is known, or proven to be true. Unless you are referring to scientific facts. If so, why?

I have no idea what a god is. There isn’t a person that has ever existed that would be qualified to determine the identity of the god you describe.

You don't know what a god is (although that wasn't the question), but you know that "There isn’t a person that has ever existed that would be qualified to determine the identity of the god you describe.

Is this a fact, or just an idea you made up?

If any entity had the ability to convincingly present the illusion of your god, there is no way you could distinguish it from the ideal you imagine.

Bold stuff, to say you can't comprehend from information, what a god is. How did we end up talking about gods.

By your own logic, unless you could prove otherwise, the example of the god I gave would be as valid or invalid as the one you espouse

That's by your logic. By my logic, you are without God.

See there’s the rub, not everyone thinks that conception of a god is supposed to be. That’s the one you personally subscribe to without reasonable evidence. And when someone else concludes otherwise with at least an equal quality of evidence, you claim they are wrong. Can you explain this logic?

I told you, it's your logic.
You explain it.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You say god is. That is an assertion. That is a claim which you evidently cannot support.

I say "God Is".
There is a difference.

It's a fundamental.
Either you accept God, or you don't.
You cannot support your position.
You just don't accept God, whereas I accept God.

You say there is no evidence for God. That is an assertion, because you are without God (original meaning of your label), and have no clue of what type of evidence you will need, to accept God.

Your arrogance allows you to think that your position is correct, and mine is false. Can you support your position?

Of course you're going to say something like, there is no evidence for God. Well of course there's no evidence of God, for you, because you are fundamentally, without God. ATheos.
"The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

Atheists actually do not think god is anything but fantasy.

I already know that. Why do you think they don that particular label. There is no God for atheists, and there never will be, until they stop denying, and rejecting. That is all every atheist post does. Denial, and rejection.

If you want me to believe a unicorn exists, it is up to you to explain your unicorn belief rather than me explain what I think your belief is.

I don't want you to believe God exists.
To expect that of a modern atheist, is a futile exercise. You will accept God, when you're ready. And it won't be via evidence, or people trying to convert you. You will simply give up this non practical mindset, called atheism.

It is up to the believer to explain why they believe & if they want others to believe, it is up to the believer to support it.

I like coming here because the atheists who engage, are dogmatic, and religious, in their zeal, and conviction, regarding denial and rejection of God. It would be become a boring site if the atheist wasn't such.
So believe me when I tell you, I'm not trying to make you believe.

It is no one's responsibility to explain why they do not believe something.

If you make a claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant, to explain, if asked. So stop hiding behind the sofa, and explain your delusion.
Both our positions are fundamental.
You are the one who has gone against the norm, by proposing there is no God.
I'm just simply keeping it real.
Why have you rebelled?
Where is your evidence that that there is no God? Oh, I just remembered. You haven't got any, because it something you say to yourself. You have said, in your heart, there is no God.

If I am convinced of something, I have no choice but to believe it. If I am not convinced, I have no choice but to not believe.

You convinced there is no God, by dint convincing yourself. If you can do that to yourself, only you can undo it.

That is important but not enough by far. If you criticize others' belief or lack of belief, you must fully explain your belief & why you believe it. If you cannot explain more about it & explain why you believe then you are not talking about god.

Like you would know. Hey?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

I say "God Is".
There is a difference.

God is just a word. Somewhat similar to gobbledygook:

gobbledygook (Noun)
Something written in an overly complex, incoherent, or incomprehensible manner.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God is just a word. Somewhat similar to gobbledygook:

Denial, and rejection.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Denial, and rejection.

Jan.

Define the word gobbledygook.....

In scripture God refers to himself as a thing not a self-awareness. A subtle difference overlooked by most. "I am That, I am"

https://chicagobible.org/why-did-god-call-himself-i-am-that-i-am/Aug 18, 2017 ... God wanted to assure Moses and Israel that God would become what they would need Him to become. In using the words “I AM THAT I AM,” ...

Apparently you have made God into what you wanted it to become.....convenient...