You claim that God does not exist, part 3

Atheists claim that God does not exist, but how do they know? Do atheists know all that exists in the universe? Don't atheists believe that they're soooooo smart, and nothing has greater intelligence or power than humans, mere mortals? Atheists want scientific proof of everything. Do we need to see planets, first, before they exist? You look out into the universe, see it's dark, and what, nothing is out there? You see nothing in the darkness, and presume it's empty, just because you can't see? That is the typical atheist, who can't see past his or her own hand.

Atheists immediately contradict themselves. First they claim God does not exist, THEN they IMMEDIATELY define God as:

1. invisible
2. flying spaghetti monster FSM
3. santa clause
4. magical unicorns

Where are they getting these impressions? I thought, didn't they claim to deny the existence of God? How can someone not exist, who you go on to define as FSM? Here is the common atheist HYPOCRISY. Atheists claim God doesn't exist, but then, define Him in silly and childish ways. So God doesn't exist, but atheists define Him as......invisible???? How do they know?!?!?!?!? How do they know about God, where are they getting this information that God is "Santa Clause"??????

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????


Some atheists argue about the definition of atheist. Agnostic means, "I don't know about God". Agnostics are not atheists. Atheists are not agnostics. Atheist means, "God does not exist, provide scientific evidence of His omnipotence please." You can see the atheist hypocrisy here. My quandary is with atheists, not agnostics. But many "agnostics" also define God similar to atheists. How do they "know" that God is a "magical unicorn", for example? Where are they getting this knowledge from???

It should become more and more obvious, with every passing day, that atheists, especially zionists like Wolverine, only want to MOCK GOD. That's what they really want to do. They want to DENY GOD, and believe they can do this by defining Him in simple, stupid, childish ways. This is why most atheists use the "flying spaghetti monster" routine. They want to try prove that God is impossible, and they do this by pathetically attempting to define God as some type of impossible thing.

Atheists, it's time for you all to admit that God is possible, and, God does exist.

ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!!!

 

Surprise surprise, an atheist dodges all the questions put before her. TYPICAL ATHEISM!!!!!!

 

I dont see you answering my questions.

Are you going to dodge the fact that your post is a nest of lies too?

 

My definitions are the words of atheists yourselves. I've collected a lot of definitions of God, from atheists, from previous "You claim that God does not exist" threads.

Do you want quotations??????? I have lots of them. Atheists define God this way, in their own words. Why are atheists defining God this way?

I already explained the answer, your rationale. You want to define God in the most ludicrous, stupid, childish way, because you want God to BECOME impossible. You don't want God to be possible. You don't want God to exist. You don't want reality to exist. You hate God.


And you, taikoo, told me your personal reason for hating God. Because He didn't protect you, when you needed Him most, right???? Right. You blame God, when instead, you should blame yourself. Typical atheist, pointing your finger at Heaven, before pointing it at yourself!

Why do atheists blame God for their own weaknesses? Why do atheists believe the universe and God, revolve around them, when instead, it's the atheist who revolves around the universe and God???

 

While it is true that some atheists make claims that God or gods do not exist, most are either more specific that God or gods defined in our culture do not exist or they simply do not believe in god. You can reject the believe in a god without claiming whether any gods exist.

It is a strawman to bring up things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster since the intent of FSM was to show the absurd nature of the Christian argument in a specific setting. Now it is a jab at certain Christians whose certainty that they are correct is non-debatable. (Like those who say that if facts violate the Bible then the facts are wrong).

If you narrowly define a god, then you can prove the definition wrong. (for example God causes the lightening when angry since we know and can create lightening then we know that God doesn't do it and that attribute is false) But we will never be able to definitively say something that we would call a God doesn't exist.

The existence of God is not something that is provable or disprovable by science. God's existence or lack there of is about belief. Whether God exists is not more provable than the idea that a rose's aroma is nicer than lavender's.

Attempts to understand the thing we now refer to as God was the reason that scriptural texts developed. It is because of search and not a destination that we have a Bible. It is human poetry set to define the mystery of existence. it takes lots of detours but as a whole it is meant to define our place in the universe as it relates to ourselves, each other and to God. In that way we created God and for some it is existence like love or happiness. But for others who can't and have no interest in that do not have a place for God in their minds. For them it is less about whether God exists or not, they simply do not care.

There is not a real good analogy for belief in God. God is be definition something outside of experience like we experience the physical universe. But what I can say is that people who know that God does not exist are as wrong as people who know their god does.

 

If you want to ask a question and get a reasonable answer, then it ought to be a reasonable question. Not one mired in falsehoods from the start.

You posted a list of definitions: but many of them do NOT include 'invisible', 'FSM', or that other stuff you listed. Therefore, only a small subset of atheists actually meet your inane caricature. You should ask them, not atheists in general. You should target them, not atheists in general. But then, that wouldn't make good flamebait for your bigoted, hateful, trolling rants, would it?

 

Do you believe in one God or multiple Gods?

 

I can help you out with your confusion. Religious people claim god, therefore its up to you to prove gods existence. You are asking to prove a negative which is impossible.
Here I will illustrate your issue with a simple question:
There are many religions on earth both present and past, many worship different gods. Which one is the correct God according to you and cite your proof as to why you are correct.

 

Atheists claim God does not exist. Yet, when you ask atheist, What/Who is God, they have no answers.

Then when you press an atheist to define God, they give silly, childish answers such as:

1. Invisible Flying Man
2. Nothingness
3. Flying Spaghetti Monsters
4. Magical Unicorns
5. Santa Clause


The question is simple, and atheists have been too cowardly, and too hateful, to address a simple criticism, exposing their true nature. Where are atheists getting these ideas about God? Why do they define God in these ways? What motive do they have, to define God, Creator of our universe and our lives, as a "flying spaghetti monster"?

Simple question, I've asked it for over a year.

STILL YOU ATHEISTS PROVIDE NOTHING, NO ANSWERS FOR A SIMPLE QUESTION, WHY NOT?!?!?!??!?!

It's because atheists claim non existence about what they do not know.

If an atheist cannot see alpha centauri, then by her flawed logic, alpha centauri must not exist.


Only what an atheist sees, exists. And if an atheist dies, then she takes the universe with her. This is how egotistical and divorced from God she is. She believes that the universe revolves around her, instead of The Truth, which is, she revolves around God. God is primary.

Atheists want to pretend that they're the centers of the universe.

 

In this very thread, you posted a great many answers you have already seen. How does it feel to be so easily caught out, deliberately lying? This is calculated, deliberate deception, there's no way out of it now. The only question is whether you are too proud to take responsibility for this obvious lie.

 

Attention ~

Focus on the topic. Stop the personal insults. If unable to do so, scroll on to another thread.

 

Even though others have already tackled this, I will jump in with my opinions and perspective and answer you as honestly as possible.

You ask what/who is god of an atheist. This atheist will tell you, that to me, god is a great and vast set of fictional characters created originally to personify and give agency to things otherwise unknowable in the natural order of things in this reality. Once people saw that people started to believe in these concepts, there was a sense of good associated with manipulating beneficial behaviors of the people who believed in the stories, and further, somewhere down the line, there were perceived extra gains to be had if one could become a 'leader' of some sort in these cultures, cults and societies derived from the collections of stories surrounding these fictional character concepts. These gods are concepts, and nobody is questioning the existence of these concepts, whether you view any of them to be fables or mythology or the only possible truth in your estimation. We know very well the concepts are real in the sense that they exist. Now, what I and all other atheists will dispute, simply by virtue of the only thing we all share in common, is that we are not convinced of the actual existence of these characters, even though that certainty will be very different from one atheist to the next. Some of us simply do not see evidence of that existence of the actual character, and others who take the time to go over the claims of the people who insist such beings are real and either dismiss those claims out of hand whether logically or just as an emotional knee-jerk reaction, or others that work through the claims of the believers and formulate, promote or propagate the ideas of others who have taken the time to rebuke or disprove those claims, whether by pointing out a lack of evidence for such claims or by taking the necessary steps to prove that such claims are not now or ever have been possible.

I have never personally seen an atheist claim that no gods exist. I have my doubts about whether or not you have either. What I have seen is the dismissal of portrayals of these concepts, based on stories presented as fact, when they are not fact at all and based on things cited as evidence, which turn out to not be evidence at all. Though truthfully, I don't see any difference between an atheist claiming there is no god, and a theist who claims there definitely is. Both are claiming to know the unknowable, and both are mistaken. Neither of the two deserve an audience, in my opinion, unless of course, they can produce evidence compelling enough for me to be moved to believe it. (Edit: Even if one turns out to be right should either be discovered, correct, the person claiming to have knowledge now that they don't is wrong. That's just how it goes folks.)

Next point. This 'only what an atheist sees, exists'. You're actually projecting what appears to be the bad behavior of a believer on me, by virtue of the group I belong to, which is barely a group at all. A person who does or does not believe in the existence of god characters, may believe in something or not believe believe in something whether they have seen it themselves or not, just like those who believe in these god characters. The problem here is that whether or not Alpha Centauri is believed in, it does exist whether it's been looked at or not looked at it, it is there to be looked at when someone decides to, and it has existed before any of us living have ever chosen to look at it, and it will (conceivably) be there long after a human being will be able to look at it. It doesn't come into existence when an atheist looks at it, and outside of some questionable philosophy and philosophers, nobody is claiming it works that way, outside of your accusation. The god character which only exists based on faith however, is another matter; the claim that it is real only came to be by belief and will by requisite die with the last believer. The behavior you accuse atheists of, by all appearances, is something believers are doing and we are not.

Next point. This bit about ' atheists want to pretend they're the centers of the universe'. This is more projection. Most of us are aware of the Sun being the center of the universe, not ourselves. We don't pretend the Sun has a master plan for the entirety of existence, which it will graciously overhaul on the whim of people begging it to. We certainly don't believe the Sun cares about our activities or our well-being or our adulation. If a believer believes that one of these characters created it all and takes such special interest in them, then this is the bad behavior of the believer, not ours.

 

Why is everyone who disagrees with me such a total idiot? And many of them claim the problem is mine, which means they are all lying idiots.

So OK, all you idiots, why can't you admit your dishonest idiocy and just see the Truth?

 

Show me a footprint.

Show me some bones.

Show me a god coprolite.

 

Does it help to know that every breath you take, some of it is air once breathed by Jesus?

 

Bump!!!

 

Why do you believe, based on your faith, that God is "fictional" and not real? How did you come up with this "fictional" distinction?

Let's say there's a real person who exists 1000 years ago. Then this person dies. There are stories about him. Later some people call the REAL stories "fictional" because they seem extraordinary. But they DID in fact happen, whether you want to personally believe in the stories or not.

 

Bump!

 

Atheism is by definition the negation of the positive assertions of theists so, until a theist asserts a god or gods then there is nothing to lack belief in. Defining gods is not my problem, if a theist is unable to define something that they positively assert then they should not be asserting it.

If you want to point at something, somewhere that might have done something and call it gods then it is your problem to substantiate it. There are gods that do not exist but, ignorance is not a good reason for gods to exist.

 

So basically whatever a Theist says about God, no matter how reasonable or demonstrative it is, it will always be denied by "Atheists".

And what you're basically admitting, is that Atheist's have no position on life and existence whatsoever, but are completely dependent on Theism to spell it all out for them? Atheism is a childish ideology?

I agree!

 

No, you are putting words in my mouth. Is that something you do a lot?

It is up to the theists to support their assertions. It is not my problem to define it or support it for them.

Do you claim that the Hibblejubblejobbly doesn't exist?

 

Tell me what it is.

Go ahead Atheist, prove your worth!

 

Editing quotes without acknowledgement is poor etiquette. Do you do that often?