You claim that God does not exist, part 3

You're disappointing me.

I want to know what Hibblejubblejobbly is................tick tock tick tock, time is running out.

 

Indeed, the list is getting longer...

1. Putting words in my mouth
2. Editing quotes without acknowledgement
3. Shifting the burden

Your posts are a lesson in, 'don't do this kids'.

 

I required that you define God, because as an atheist, you deny His existence. However it seems that you don't know what/whom you are denying, but rather denying "whatever Theists say". So that position would be a childish one, to simply deny deny deny without understanding what exactly you are denying. You then attempted, and failed, to turn it around and tried to trap me into denying the existence of "Hibblejubblejobbly". I did not deny the existence, but instead required that you define what you're talking about. You did not do so.

This reinforces my suspicions. Atheists have no position, and are DEPENDENT on Theism for answers.

 

Atheist comes from the greek "a" (without) - "theos" (Gods) so an atheist is literally someone whose belief system doesn't involve God. Many atheists don't even claim God doesn't exist and only lack belief in God. I am one of them.

Actually many atheists admit the possibility of alien life that might be more advanced than human life, this is because if there are trillions of planets then if humans were able to evolve the chances are really good that it could happen somewhere else. So no atheists do not believe humans are the smartest species, and I am one of them.

Some do, but many simply want a reason to know God is real, it has to be logical but not necessarily scientific. I am one of them.

You are conflating wanting evidence with wanting visual evidence. We can know who did a murder with finding finger prints and this is convincing evidence, even if nobody directly saw the crime.

We don't define God as being invisible, just non-material and that is because this is the God theists claim exists. We aren't claiming that God is non-material and are only addressing the idea or claim of an invisible God.

FSM is more of a joke version of God and not a serious claim.

I have never heard any atheist claim God is Santa Clause or a magical unicorn. We only compare a belief in God to these things because both lack any evidence.

I ask these simple, SIMPLE questions to atheists, and they have no answers!!!!!!! This shows that atheists aren't as "smart" as they claim to be, and like to think. Why do atheists refuse to answer such simple questions????

An atheist is someone who either:
A: Believes God doesn't exist.
B. Doesn't believe in God or lacks belief.

An agnostic is someone who either:
A: Believes the question of God's existence is unknowable.
B: Lacks any believe for or against God.

As you can see there is some overlap and someone can be both an atheist and agnotic if they lack belief in God because they don't believe (Atheist) and don't have any belief either way (Agnostic). I consider myself to be an atheist agnostic.

Wolverine is a fictional character and Zionists are Jews not atheists. Doesn't the bible talk about Israel being reborn, so isn't Zionism more of a Jewish/Christian idea?

 

Well as an Apatheist my position is pretty simple I won't say deities exist or not but say they do my point is why spends money, material resources, hours in worship and funding a cast of clergy on them unless they are:

1. Demonstrated to exist it should be easy if they cared about being worshipped.

2. Tell us what they want and in clear language they are deities that should be simple to do.

3. Do something if they demand worship either good or bad ... heal all the sick annually if we sacrifice goats and such at a temple in the city the sick are in OR worship us sacrificing the goats or we wipe the city off the Earth or something big enough to matter.

4. They follow through after we spend the money, hours of time etc.

Until this happens and since these beings seem to do NOTHING and clearly don't care to make clear contact and terms all that money, time, hours and such are best spent on real problems using rational minds to figure that our OR let the people keep the money etc. and they can do something else with it. How many poor people piss away the modest money they make on this crap in third world countries I've seen big churches and temples and mosques in very poor nations with poor people who could use their precious money more practically then giving it to religions and their clergy and this across the board even Buddhism has issues here.

Now take this to the long length of human history I can get back in the old days but once we had the Enlightenment and the advent of modern science religion should have slowly died off save the faiths efforts to scare their poor undereducated masses into submission and hiding the fact there is no evidence, real evidence, to back their claims.

 

Emojis? Really?

 

This one, in this thread, has been creating strawman fallacies since 2014. At least he is consistent.

 

You claim that God does not exist

Actually, I only claim YOUR god does not exists.

 

The French Catholics created the word "atheist" around 1570 as a curse word to describe the French Protestatnts, who they were fighting a religious war against to deprive them of freedom of religion. It was a way to demonize their enemy.
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

 

What exactly do you think a definition is? Descriptions are common, likenesses are common. I haven't seen vary many (on either side) attempt to provide an actual definition, despite my frequent requests.

A definition is a set of criteria which are necessary and sufficient to determine whether a word applies.

How would you define God?

 

God is simply an imaginary entity that some ancient nut dreamed up and convinced his superstitious buddies that the imaginary deity was real. And then peer pressure took over and the belief continues till this day. All gods are imaginary. But since religion is big business the fanatics will kill or otherwise destroy people who deny the fanatics' favorite deity. It's been that way for thousands of years. And in all of that time not one god of any kind has ever come forward to prove its existence in all of its reputed glory. That will never, ever, happen.

 

Are you trolling?

 

Whatever you want to call "I don't know" is what I am. The rest is semantics.

 

You also seem to misunderstand what a definition is (or you're waffling on about some topic unrelated to the post you quoted).

A definition is not a description of the thing in question, like what you provided. A definition is a set of criteria which are necessary and sufficient to determine whether a word applies. A definition is not a statement about the world, it is a statement about the meaning of a word.

For instance, consider the word "unicorn". The definition of "unicorn" is something along the lines of "an animal that is like a horse, except it has a single horn" (the exact details are less important for this examples). If there is an object which is not like a horse (like a rhinoceros), then the word unicorn does not apply. If there is an object which does not have a horn, then the word unicorn does not apply (the criterion of a horn is necessary). However, if you were to read about an imaginary unicorn, it might be imaginary, but "unicorn" is still the right word. Clearly "imaginary" is not a part of the definition, even if all unicorns happen to be imaginary.

Similarly with God, "imaginary" is not a part of the definition.

In fact, careless definitions (and careless declarations of definitions) can be counterproductive. A religious person could say "God exists", you would say "ah, but God is defined not to exist" and the religious person would reply "well, what I'm talking about exists, so you're talking about something else" and thus be able to avoid any argument you make about God. This seems unhelpful to me.

 

Provide the facts. You can't just claim something fact without evidence.

 

Surprise, surprise! A theist makes up idiotic questions and demands that they only be answered in a manner comforting to him. Typical dishonesty of the ardent theist who cannot conceive o another way of thought.

 

Not to burst your bubble, but I am an atheist and when pressed, always by a theist, to define this gawd of yours, I simply say that there is nothing to define as this entity does not exist. Nothing more need be said as proving otherwise is on you.

 

Buddha and Allah Akbar are two same kind of Gods.

Two Gods and prophet Muhammed in religion Islam.

Asa Oden are my teacher in English he know and even I know rightly.

 

Is that true? Do unicorns exist? No. Do they thereby not have definitions? No.

 

Actually, definitions of Unicorns call them mythical.

It upsets theists if you define their gods by what they actually are, so we don't. We pretend for them, like we do for children.

 

I not justice with Buddha with hatred posts in Swedish forum for eight years ago. Not Buddha he means.

 

A definition created by man, just like gawd.

 

Here's a question: Can a god exist if no one believes in it? Most gods that were revered aren't any longer, such as the Norse, Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods. So do those gods exist? Not in any real sense, merely in history, as something that people thought might have existed. They have definitions, sure, like the unicorn, but that doesn't make them real.

So why should we think that any of the current batch of gods are any more real? Would Mohammed still exist if no one believed in him? Or Christ?

The fact is that thousands of gods have been revered and most of them don't exist, so what should we think about those we have at the moment?

 

But to some that logic doesn't apply due to it differing from what they want to believe.

 

I don't see that as being the right question.

There is a big difference between "god" and religion.

All religions past and present could have elements that actually map to an actual, real supernatural.

Or, maybe only a very few do.

Or, maybe NONE do.

And, for most of these there is the question of why a god would leave a significant percent of mankind so deluded. But, that question doesn't really help.