Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Once again that is YOUR definition stated as being factual.
And I would remind you that many (if not most) atheists in this country were christians at some point in their lives (often for very long periods of their lives).
Were you ever an atheist?
I ask this because of a conversation I once had with a teacher when I was the principal. She said, "Victor, you've forgotten what it's like to be a teacher". My response was very simple: "No, I did that job for 13 years, and I remember it well. On the other hand, you've never been a school administrator, so you are the one who actually has no idea about the other person's job responsibilities".
I'm not. It all comports...with full merit & substantiation.
But as you know...there is a proscription of the explanation.
some atheist completely ignore observation and pretend to know enough to deny any belief in any type of [thing]. when really all it means is a deity [thing] at this point. to many other beliefs have evidence to say we just deny it.
Its funny how some of them ask for proof then some of them report the proof when given ... it is so funny that the more they say they are not like fundy theist, the more do the exact same things as fundy theists.
Atheism is not believing in gods based on what we observe, either consciously or subconsciously. You are arguing against this, pretending it is something else.
I am arguing against that claim. And I can fully provide the objective evidence to back up the argument...there is no "pretending".
I am aware of the attributes known to define a God Entity. That is available to anyone that cares to learn about it...and not edit & redact and cherry-pick the definitions to only the meanings that describe just metaphorical and allegorical Deities and Mythological creatures in ancient writings.
I can prove the definition of G-O-D goes beyond just Deities and Mythological creatures. You are aware of that...but YOU are the one "pretending" it doesn't.
What can be observed unequivocally and irrefutably comports definitively...and is self-substantiating to exist.
You can legitimately claim that there is no observable evidence of the objective existence of Religious Deities and Mythological creatures...but you cannot legitimately claim there is no observable evidence of the objective existence of "God".
Atheism can only accurately be defined as the Belief Deities do not exist...or a lack of Belief in the existence of Deities...and Deities only, not "God".
I am arguing against that claim. And I can fully provide the objective evidence to back up the argument...there is no "pretending".
I am aware of the attributes known to define a God Entity. That is available to anyone that cares to learn about it...and not edit & redact and cherry-pick the definitions to only the meanings that describe just metaphorical and allegorical Deities and Mythological creatures in ancient writings.
I can prove the definition of G-O-D goes beyond just Deities and Mythological creatures. You are aware of that...but YOU are the one "pretending" it doesn't.
What can be observed unequivocally and irrefutably comports definitively...and is self-substantiating to exist.
You can legitimately claim that there is no observable evidence of the objective existence of Religious Deities and Mythological creatures...but you cannot legitimately claim there is no observable evidence of the objective existence of "God". Atheism can only accurately be defined as the Belief Deities do not exist...or a lack of Belief in the existence of Deities...and Deities only, not "God".
If you can't even get this right why would I believe you've unlocked some secret mystery?
I don't mess with how the universe started. We do not know how it started. we have two broad guesses on that. "something" or "nothing". "nothing" is a buzz kill. "something", like Branes, quantum soup, and deity, or turtles are all guesses. They are meaningless because we can make up anything we want.
Life starting on earth. Physics look at life as all about information. It is only about information exchange. The "exact replication of information" in more of a biology thing. So long as the information is being expresses in a meaningful way (meaningful here meaning processed in patterns that are doing something, like a tree for example) it may be alive.
The universe is a more complex information processor than earth. That processer created earth. You change the word "processor" to something else, it means the same thing. That's a plain and simple statement badland. You can take that to any college professor. Preferably a physics person, but any hot shot bio guy will understand.
Yes, you are qualified to tell yourself anything you want. You are not qualified to tell others that "there is no god or gods of any kind". You can say "I am only talking about a deity type". If you make that clear every time you talk then its fine. Its at least honest.
I don't want to say to much until you get that part. Mystics and gold's gods have evidence. to say they none is BS and quite frankly a lie at this point. I don't agree with them, but they have some evidence.
I have never said that thete was no evidence for a God, I say there is a lack of sufficient evidence for a God. I don't take that I'm alive as evidence for a God as it would then be evidence for every God or even for Satan if it was sufficient evidence.
I don't need to change my wording to please one person's ego. He wants us to a abingdon the definition for atheism all together as well as accept that thete is a God that he claims is not a diety but it also includes Christ. That sounds like it does include a diety, especially as reality does not include Christ for the majority of the planets population.
I don't go out of my way to insult other posters but I will not coddle those who do. I feel you go out of your way in insulting atheists to make theists feel better. You seem to think that I try to insult just to insult.
I don't believe that MysticPhD has evidence that is sufficient to accept his beliefs nor do I know of any science that backs him as he also says that science cannot know and as not provided links to the science he says does. What i do know is it is un reasonable for the atheists of the Wold need to chang the na me and definite insurance for atheism jus so he can post his claim wit out the need to state that we aRe irational and disingenuous.
If you can't even get this right why would I believe you've unlocked some secret mystery?
It's not a "secret mystery".
It's all fully observable.
It is my view...I did get that right. The issue, it appears, comes down to what definitions/meanings of "G-O-D" are willing to be acknowledged and accepted.
I accept and acknowledge them all...I do not edit/redact/cherry-pick the definitions/meanings.
It's not a "secret mystery".
It's all fully observable.
It is my view...I did get that right. The issue, it appears, comes down to what definitions/meanings of "G-O-D" are willing to be acknowledged and accepted.
I accept and acknowledge them all...I do not edit/redact/cherry-pick the definitions/meanings.
observable is the beginning. replicate it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
