To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[Dywyddyr]

Your hard work...
Tell me, what is the difference between "don't know" to "don't believe" in ths context?

It's quite simple.
While one may believe in god(s) they may also subscribe to the idea that there is nothing we can know about god(s).

While all along knowing that theists cannot produce objective evidence. So why do they troll these forums looking for someone to "pick on". Fool.

Oh right.
So I'm the fool because theists want everyone to subscribe to the beliefs they hold that they know can't be given any objective evidence.

I don't speak for all theists, obviously you'll get arrogant theists because they're arrogant people. Atheists who attack people based on their beliefs are not just arrogant, they are sick in a way. A bit like a thug who beats the life out of someone they just robbed.

Yeah, maybe you should learn to distinguish between an attack on a belief (and its concomitant consequences) and an attack on the person holding that belief.

 

[Dywyddyr]

atheism is belief.

Nope.

i am religious without any religion.

Right...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The old cliche is appropriate here... Love is illogical so does that mean it doesn't exist?

Where in the world did you get the idea that love is illogical??? Love is an extremely important emotion in a social species like Homo sapiens. It encourages people to help, support, protect and trust each other.

And we're hardly the only species that experiences the emotion.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

atheism is belief.

No. Atheism is the absence of belief. Although some atheists are militant and insist that God does not exist, they are not following the rules of science.

The rest of us simply follow the scientific method, which tells us that the burden of proof falls on the person who says he does.

To put it in proper form: The burden of proof always falls on the person who asserts the positive. It is never necessary to prove a negative.

 

[PhysBang]

Considering the fact that many religions refer to God as Love then that sort of wraps up the argument that God can and probably does exist.

If only they stopped there.

But, no, they usually move on to tell people how to give their money to other people and to hate and kill other people.

 

[madethesame]

the love
the love we ordinary human experience is of the heart level. therefore pseudo scientist call it disease foolishly.

No. Atheism is the absence of belief. Although some atheists are militant and insist that God does not exist, they are not following the rules of science.

The rest of us simply follow the scientific method, which tells us that the burden of proof falls on the person who says he does.

To put it in proper form: The burden of proof always falls on the person who asserts the positive. It is never necessary to prove a negative.

No. Atheism is the absence of belief. Although some atheists are militant and insist that God does not exist, they are not following the rules of science.
what is the sceintific reason we eat, live, our presence, our witnessing each other

The rest of us simply follow the scientific method, which tells us that the burden of proof falls on the person who says he does.

To put it in proper form: The burden of proof always falls on the person who asserts the positive. It is never necessary to prove a negative.

this absence of the belief is also a belief.
all know about human body being made of energy and matter, but why we witness each other does 'science' give its answer. is thier any proof of witnessing in physics ?
i dont know whether it is their or not but the day it is found our search for proof will stop.

 

[Dywyddyr]

therefore pseudo scientist call it disease foolishly.

Citation needed.

this absence of the belief is also a belief.

And the absence of food is edible?
The absence of heat means you're warm?
The ABSENCE of belief is not a belief.

all know about human body being made of energy and matter, but why we witness each other does 'science' give its answer. is thier any proof of witnessing in physics ?
i dont know whether it is their or not but the day it is found our search for proof will stop.

This is incoherent drivel.
Please stop posting.

 

[Yazata]

God is a leap of faith at that point, not a logical deduction.

JamesR was responding to the theistic first-cause argument, which typically is presented as a logical argument.

The old cliche is appropriate here... Love is illogical so does that mean it doesn't exist?

Love is a subjective emotion, or perhaps a propensity to behave in certain ways in certain situations. In other words, love can be understood as a psychological state of the lover. People rarely want to claim in addition that some mysterious being called "love itself" exists somewhere that corresponds to the lover's personal state and to which the lover's state refers.

Of course not. So this proves that something illogical can exist. Considering the fact that many religions refer to God as Love then that sort of wraps up the argument that God can and probably does exist.

It does?

I don't think that anyone would deny the existence of subjective religious experiences or that religious people have propensities to behave in religious ways.

The difficulty here is that most theists don't want to simply say that the word 'God' names some aspect of their own subjective psychological state. Theists make the claim that an ultimate and transcendent being called "God" actually exists, to which the psychological state and the word 'God' refer.

It's that additional existence claim that requires argument, at least if the theist wants to convince other people that what he/she says is true.

 

[Amar Nath Reu]

What I translated.

(इयं विसृष्टि यह विविध प्रकार की सृष्टि (यत: आ वभूव) जिस मूल तत्व से प्रकट हूई है (यदि वा दधे) जो धारण करता है (यदि वा न) जो नहिं करता (य: अस्यो अध्यक्ष जो इसका अध्यक्ष वह (परमे व्योमन) परम पद है (स: अंङ्ग वेद) सब जानता है (यदि चा न वेद) यदि कोई न जाने.

मूल तत्व, the ultimate substrate, that is exactly what I believe in, 'physical energy'.

 

[madethesame]

Many theists not only define God (e.g. Original Cause, and many things attributed to God within Scriptures).
Many (e.g. Jan) consider God knowable.
It's absurd that you claim theists don't define God and then state a definition that the theists might use ("one above all").
The person can be atheist for any reason which leads them to conclude not to have belief in the existence of God.
Many atheists would think it illogical, and certainly irrational for them, to have belief in the existence of something for which they can have (per your comments) no evidence. So the irrationality, as they would see it, lies with such theists who believe without evidence.
Most don't. God either exists or not whether we believe in his existence or not. What many active atheists want to negate is the prevalence of religion within our cultures, especially when the only reason for something might be religious belief rather than anything more practical. When religious values are pushed upon someone merely on the basis that they are religious, some people push back.
So in answer to the unknown you propose "God did it"?

i am not an atheist nor an theist. life is not always based on logical example me.
evidence is for the one who has 'seprated' from the eternal, then only the person can know another.
experiments are done to find god, this seperation is all the cause of these experiments.
important things here is you used the words 'we atheists' you think that all are like you, you still have a belief.
see we all are madethesame.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i am not an atheist nor an theist.

Wrong.
You either believe or you don't.
There is no "halfway" position.

evidence is for the one who has 'seprated' from the eternal, then only the person can know another.

Inane drivel.

experiments are done to find god

By whom?

this seperation is all the cause of these experiments.

For this to be true then "god" would have to exist - this claim therefore shows your earlier claim (to be not a theist) false.

important things here is you used the words 'we atheists'

Did I?
Please show where I used those words.

you think that all are like you

Nope.

you still have a belief.

In what?

 

[Yazata]

Atheism is belief

No. Atheism is the absence of belief.

If that was the case, then so-called 'atheists' would stop being atheists as soon as they acquired any beliefs.

I'm more inclined to define 'atheism' as the belief that 'God' doesn't exist. That's how most professional philosophers and scholars of religious studies use the term and it better describes those who identify themselves as 'atheists'.

Atheists often have a whole host of beliefs in addition to that basic defining belief. They often (but not universally) insist that there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or that 'religion' (which many atheists equate with belief in God) is a dark and atavistic force in human history. Some atheists seem to believe that atheists are more intelligent than 'religionists'. My own view is that some of these atheist beliefs are defensible and well-founded, while others aren't.

To put it in proper form: The burden of proof always falls on the person who asserts the positive. It is never necessary to prove a negative.

That's an atheist belief that I'd classify as foolishness.

Suppose that somebody makes the claim that 'atoms don't exist'. Presumably that assertion still needs quite a bit of evidence and argument before it becomes plausible. People have no obligation to believe every statement that has a logical negation operator tucked into it somewhere.

 

[madethesame]

Wrong.
You either believe or you don't.
There is no "halfway" position.


Inane drivel.


By whom?


For this to be true then "god" would have to exist - this claim therefore shows your earlier claim (to be not a theist) false.


Did I?
Please show where I used those words.
i am wrong.
i read someone else words, this i first time i joined any forum.
i expect mistakes.

Nope.


In what?

body is made of matter. universe is not made of matter.
the collective what i call eternal is 0 the god.
now we come to proof thing. the universe has +energy/matter and -energy/matter. proof prove existence.
but what existence, when their is already its negation energy present somewhere. what is proved.
you still believe.

 

[madethesame]

your targets are religious ducks

 

[Dywyddyr]

If that was the case, then so-called 'atheists' would stop being atheists as soon as they acquired any beliefs.

Uh yes.
If atheists acquire a belief in god then they become - automatically - theists.

I'm more inclined to define 'atheism' as the belief that 'God' doesn't exist.

Doesn't make you right.

That's how most professional philosophers and scholars of religious studies use the term and it better describes those who identify themselves as 'atheists'.

Really? Just like this one?
Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

Atheists often have a whole host of beliefs in addition to that basic defining belief.

Um, except that, in this case the ONLY pertinent belief (or lack of) is whether or not one believes in god.
Any other belief is irrelevant to the the question.

Some atheists seem to believe that atheists are more intelligent than 'religionists'. My own view is that some of these atheist beliefs are defensible and well-founded, while others aren't.
That's an atheist belief that I'd classify as foolishness.

Presumably your final sentence refers to the first.
That particular belief is neither A) held by all atheists nor, B) mutandis mutandis, confined to atheists only.
Thus it's not, strictly speaking, an (exclusively) atheist belief, it's more of a "human" one.

 

[Dywyddyr]

body is made of matter. universe is not made of matter.

Nothing to do with the topic.

the collective what i call eternal is 0 the god.

So what?
And would this be the god you claimed you don't believe in?

now we come to proof thing. the universe has +energy/matter and -energy/matter. proof prove existence.

Doesn't prove that it's "god" though.

but what existence, when their is already its negation energy present somewhere. what is proved.

What?

you still believe.

In what?

 

[madethesame]

Nothing to do with the topic.


So what?
And would this be the god you claimed you don't believe in?
the funny thing is i dont believe in any thing but not still atheist not agnostic.
no sanctuary i find under labels.

Doesn't prove that it's "god" though.


What?
i mean what we can prove when already nothing exists.

In what?

to prove the non existence.

 

[Dywyddyr]

the funny thing is i dont believe in any thing but not still atheist not agnostic.

Not only incorrect linguistically it's also incorrect as shown by your own statements.

no sanctuary i find under labels.

Not MY problem.

i mean what we can prove when already nothing exists.

Er, evidently you don't know what you're talking about.

to prove the non existence.

This doesn't answer my question.
You claimed that I still believe.
I certainly don't believe that we can prove the non-existence of god(s).

 

[madethesame]

Not only incorrect linguistically it's also incorrect as shown by your own statements.


Not MY problem.


Er, evidently you don't know what you're talking about.


This doesn't answer my question.
You claimed that I still believe.
I certainly don't believe that we can prove the non-existence of god(s).

dear friend what you want to prove when nothing exist.
we are made up of - and + energy.
the science does not deal phenomena, it concludes the result.

 

[Dywyddyr]

dear friend what you want to prove when nothing exist.

What?

we are made up of - and + energy.

There's no such thing as "- energy".

the science does not deal phenomena, it concludes the result.

Wrong.

And none of that addresses my previous points.