You claim that God does not exist, part 3

Obvious is relative. The desert is obvious for desert-dwellers. The forest is obvious for forest-dwellers.

God can be obvious to everybody, and I believe is, to an open-mind (which atheists do not have).

Evidence is all around. Atheists actively choose to ignore evidence.

Agreed.

Unfortuantely Atheism is a religion.

 

Definitions imply authority, that a speaker who defines a concept has influence and such, defines a word not only for him/herself, but for others as well, or even for everybody else. Descriptions are reduced down to "personal opinions" and imply subjectivity. If a person speaks for God then it implies definition rather than description.

Who can speak for God? Who has the Right to define God? Who has the ability or inspiration?

And yes, it's true, competing definitons of God will exclude some groups (Jews) from "believing in God" or not. This is the theological challenge, the degree by which peoples to believe in God, or a definition that joins people together or separates them apart.

 

So no matter what you may be wondering about, it is perfectly possible - because - everything is perfectly analogous to randomly shuffling a deck of 52 unique cards. Apparently. Now, I have this beautiful bridge... No, really! Where ya goin'?

 

Not no matter what, but here we are. Even if it took a very improbable event to get us here, the probability of all the other events are just as improbable. So if someone told you that at one point, someone shuffled a deck of cards and it came out in exact card order, you can't say that's impossible because it is just as probable as every other deck order that has ever been shuffled. You just put a special significance to it.

 

There is nothing reactionary about it. You obviously don't unserstand the difference between reactionary and reaction. The dictionary may be of help for you.

I am an honest atheist.

 

Honesty applies equally to theists and atheists. Neither camp is inherently honest and one can be honest with others while fooling themselves or vice-versa. So who gives a crap? Someone full of bluster, likely still trying like hell to convince themselves of something they don't really believe.

 

Yes, "Not no matter what." Here we aren't <-> shuffling 52 unique cards randomly. Apples are not oranges. The probability of a Washington Apple being low ("improbable") says nothing about the probability of a Temple Orange being anything.

I understood your point the first time. It applies only in terms of wishful thinking (fallacious reasoning).

 

So many inae fallacies, so little time!

You can't produce a shred of evidence for your creator.

If atheism is a religion then health is a disease!

 

The idea that you don't have to prove something doesn't exist if you claim that it doesn't as fact, if idiotic. If you say, as an atheist that you BELIEVE, there is no god, fine, But, if you want to claim it as fact and call people stupid and ignorant for not agreeing with you, like Bill Maher, then you have to prove that there is no god using verifiable evidence.

The same goes goes theists. Beliefs in a god is fine, but the moment you claim it as a prove fact, you have to prove it.

 

Do you believe Psychic Snowflakes exist?

 

A lot of things are beyond my limits (of perception), indeed most of the universe. I'm always blind to things that are really tiny or really far away or extremely well camouflaged but all of those things have one thing in common- they're finite. Bible-god is described as infinite in every way so he should exist both beyond and within my limits. For god to exist only within or beyond my limits would make him finite.

 

I disagree, descriptions are statements about objects. For instance, saying "all bananas are yellow" is a descriptive statement. It might be true, it might be false (the statement might have been "all bananas are blue"), it doesn't matter, it is still a descriptive statement.

Definitions are statements about the words one might use to talk about an object. For instance, saying "cars have four wheels" is a definitional statement.

Let's consider a descriptive statement failing. Let's say you are presented with a blue banana. You can then conclude that the statement "all bananas are yellow" is incorrect.

Consider instead a definitional statement. Let's say you are presented with a car with two wheels. Only, by having only two wheels, the car has stopped being a car and started being a motorcycle instead. So it may still be true that all cars have four wheels, the only thing that has happened is that the word "car" stopped being the appropriate word.

Note that the definitional statement tells us nothing about what actually is. There was a vehicle with two wheels, the fact that we had defined "car" to mean something with four wheels didn't stop the motorcycle from existing. The definition tells us only whether the word "car" was appropriate.

Definitions are not universal or objective, as you seem to imply. For instance, the Swedish language uses completely different words than English. In Swedish, the definition of "god" is "tasty" (more or less). I think that example makes it clear that the definition of "god" is not a statement about a particular god or the idea of godhood, but of the word "god".

It shouldn't be a challenge at all, if you use definitions in the usual way, then everything sorts itself out. However, if you do, then what you posted isn't a definition. A definition doesn't need to say everything about God, it just need to say the things which, if they were not fulfilled, would disqualify the usage of the word God. It seems to me Jews are quite able to talk about God, and that isn't linguistically incorrect (regardless of what they think God is like), so the definition of God should include their understanding.

 

I was just throwing that concept out with respect to abiogenesis. I'm not going to pretend that I am up to speed on all of the chemistry and biology involved in all of the arguments, but if the only argument (or an argument) is that achieving a specific sequence of molecules is unlikely, then, I just wanted to point out that there is no reason to think that couldn't have occurred.

 

First , which gods or god are you referring to when you say god, there have been tens of thousands of gods throughout history


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

But of course we know which god you are pimping

The god of the christian's


The following is funny but true

Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian



10 – You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 – You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 – You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 – Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!

6 – You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 – You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 – You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”

3 – While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.

2 – You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 – You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.

 

That'd be fair enough.

 

That's a loaded question, so I'm going to ignore the parts about me believing something, or having some sort of faith, or a fictional distinction, and get to the question at the center of it; why would I consider the Abrahamic, or any other 'god', a fictional character? There's no convincing evidence of their existence. It's that simple. A large section of people who fancy the idea of that existence does not equal evidence of that existence.

If you have some extraordinary stories that you fancy, that's fine. There's no stopping you. Getting others to agree is another matter. It's up to each individual if they want to accept something at face value or not. Many of us have higher standards than that; please pardon the phrasing. If you want others to agree that such extraordinary claims are true, you'll need extraordinary evidence for that. If you don't, can't or won't provide that evidence, then there's no reason to agree with you and your claims can be dismissed on the spot, with no more evidence required than that which was used to make such claims.

If you want to chalk it up to a simple disagreement, consider this. Person A says something happened or some thing or person exists. Person B disagrees. What settles that dispute? No thing better than evidence here. Not semantics or emotional pleas. Not hearsay. Not shady argumentation.

 

Theists often point to elements of nature as evidence for the existence of God. If my bullshit filter doesn't permit me to see it, then I'm simply blind. But evidence is only created by finite entities, like foot prints, broken branches and dung. God is described as an all-powerful and all-present entity which means there's no such thing as evidence for God, only proof. Proof of God's existence should be unambiguously and incontrovertibly obvious, as should the proof of God's non-existence. In either case, it's never a matter of faith. Nobody needs to believe that God exists or not, or worry about the consequences of being wrong. People who promote faith in God out of hope or fear are being immoral- liars, con artists, the mentally ill.