Makes the claim that god or gods doesn't exist, usually by an argument of evidence, however any argument could really be made, or not, for that claim. It's god or gods don't exist', and they claim to know that.
This is a better OP; easier understand.
Let me get your logic. Talk with me here. ---Please converse.
Atheist don't understand atheism relating to God's existence but agnostics do?
1. First, problem one, no one has defined god in one specific description. No Hindu, no Abrahamic (kinda wish Muslims can say something), and in part, no Pagan. I think the only people I understand god is pantheism.
But then that word is not completely defined by person. Believers can't even (some cant and others prefer not to) anything so far. All we have of gods existence is a claim and evidence making a confirmed bias over scripture of any god-religion, without connecting how the culture and practices then some how applies today. Yet, we don't use the same medical treatments as back then. I find that weird since they are both important.
Even among christians the word god is mixed up. The problem starts with theists. You must have a distinct explanation of god-each of you-to judge whether god Does exist in the active world apart from the desires and minds of believers. The difference is Hindus get this. Some Pagans do. Christians don't.
That's problem one.
2. Problem two is not providing any connection outside your experience to life that we all understand as a common denominator of what fact and whats belief.
Facts arent beliefs; beliefs arent facts. Christians (Since many other god-believers understand this; dont know about muslims and jews). Since beliefs arent facts, expression of those beliefs cannot be presented as facts to a diverse crowd of people.
Unless its your opinion as a fact and kept at your opinion, god as a fact (abrahamic) is not a fact-is not connected to reality for the reason of problem one.
3. Problem three is sacred scripture. Christians and Bahai do this. I don't see any other god-believer do outside their own group.
Its counterproductive. Think about it. You say god exists; fine. You say this is why; fine-your belief. You say look at this book; we look at it. You say god exists by this book. We look puzzled.
If we cannot understand your claim how in the world are we supposed to understand Bahaullah's claim nor the Jews and Muslims claim nor christians (jesus as god or not)l. It's out of the ballpark because of the other two problems. Scripture doesnt help because it was written so long ago and we cannot ask the people who wrote it, we have to talk to you as believers.
Thats why the confirmation bias such as scripture does not work. But believers through it out anyway, as if your scriptures provide some automatic revelation of your truth. That does not make sense.
Now to the atheist part
In order for an atheist to say god exists (or an agnostic to say he doesnt know he does) is theist have to solve the problems above and give a proper and tangible (doesnt mean material) or logical explanation of what and who god is apart from your beliefs of how you define him as well las what people over three thousand years ago defines him. I side with jews since they don't define god. Everyone else tries to.
So a atheist who does 100 percent believe god does not exist is logical because he can't say god does nor says he doesn't know if he doesn't have a proper definition to go off of in the first place
Atheist just means lack of belief in god. People have their variations; but, that's the core of it. So, we can't change the word nor any other word thereby misinterpreting it. Unless there is a god beyond a concept and belief, by what means is this type of atheist wrong or misguided.
Follow the logic not from your personal belief. That's another problem. Arguing from the wrong perspective or tool. You need to change it up a bit. Also, provide new insight rather than regurgitated ones.
Agnosticism says they don't prove whether god exists or not. This, I don't understand, because there is no concrete definition, so which god do they exactly doesnt know exist. Its illogical. Atheist have more sense because you cant claim something exists when there is no tangible definition to which any evidence can be presented.
So....
That leaves me, as an atheist, with this conclusion
God (abrahamic and Hindu) exists in the hearts of people not as external beings. Holy Spirit is said to be love and a comfortable. God is said to be a provider. Jesus had a mission to be a savior. No where in history do these things show up in a spiritual way.
If it were fact, then the spirituality would be part of the history of christianity; it is not. Yes, there are stuff about christianity, but not stuff specific to supernatural events in a historical light. Can't prove god with history.
1. So you must have concrete idea of god in order to defend your view against those who say otherwise
2. Two, you guys need to decide whether you have a belief or a fact. We understand the subjectivity of beliefs. Once you say its a fact, then....
3. Sacred scripture is counter productive. We can't just read Bahaullah's and the Apostles scripture and there ya go, we know everything spiritually. It doesnt work that way.
I am an atheist; strong one, as they call it. Once you find what an atheist is, my definitions would change. I can't be a agnostic because I need to understand who or what I would be saying I don't know exists.
Thank you for reading all this.
