Is atheism a belief?

[Link]

Atheists also all the time feel like they are obligated to testify the proofs of God don't prove him. All they show is three possibilities (1) they hate God and are stubborn towards his proofs (2) They lack insight and can't perceive proofs (3) aren't willing to listen to the proofs of God but are ever hasty to deny them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheists also all the time feel like they are obligated to testify the proofs of God don't prove him. All they show is three possibilities (1) they hate God and are stubborn towards his proofs (2) They lack insight and can't perceive proofs (3) aren't willing to listen to the proofs of God but are ever hasty to deny them.

Nope, none of those.

As one would expect from a Muslim, you are describing some fantasy about atheists as opposed to the real thing.

We simply stand unconvinced by claims of existence of god. The reasons are varied and to a large extend personal, and it turns out that simple aesthetical preference is plenty enough (although it is not universally present among us).

As for evidence of God, well, it just isn't really there to be seen.

 

[PureX]

Not "inability". Instead, lack of logical reason to even consider it.

And it would be nice of you to realize how unsustainable your attempt to brand atheists as liars is. It cheapens you.

That's funny.

Self-deception is the most common form of lying, and the hardest for us to recognize. It underpins and fuels our need to lie to others, as well as our panic when caught out and accused. All the more reason to take such an accusation under consideration, rather than auto-defending oneself with gibberish about how logical one's logic is.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's funny.

Self-deception is the most common form of lying, and the hardest for us to recognize. It underpins and fuels our need to lie to others, as well as our panic when caught out and accused. All the more reason to take such an accusation under consideration, rather than auto-defending oneself with gibberish about how logical one's logic is.

Congratulations. You are on the right track.

 

[Link]

If you choose to rely on conjecture of humans to make you perceive what could be potentially be proofs of God, you are setting up yourself to deny God. Especially if you are specifically choosing the blind to God's proofs.

Your best bet Atheists, is to search out a guidance from God. Surely, if anyone can remind you of proofs of his existence and way to know he exists beyond doubt, it's God.

You choose give God a chance to guide or rely on the blind for your whole life.

 

[ratiocinator]

Atheists also all the time feel like they are obligated to testify the proofs of God don't prove him. All they show is three possibilities (1) they hate God and are stubborn towards his proofs (2) They lack insight and can't perceive proofs (3) aren't willing to listen to the proofs of God but are ever hasty to deny them.

Proofs of god? The only supposed "proofs" I've seen have been laughable. Care to share one or two?

 

[ratiocinator]

Your best bet Atheists, is to search out a guidance from God.

Which one (godchecker) and how would one do that when there doesn't appear to be the slightest reason to think any of them are real?

 

[Link]

Sure, I can share. Who we are is not a physical construct. If we assume Naturalism is true (nothing beyond physical world), at most we are idea/program generated by the brain.

However, in either case, we require perception and to be perceived to exist.

Now to have an exact reality and not to be an illusion of having an exact reality, we must exist in perfect sight or vision or judgment or a perfect witness must be generating us and accounting us for our deeds.

To show this is easy, just reflect on yourself and see that you are estimating who you are, but that it relies on the assumption you have an exact reality. If there was no exact reality, it would be chasing the wind and nothing to see and base the construct on.

Like a child drawing an airplane, he doesn't know all the fine tune details that go the airplane, we know so little about ourselves and how we are who we are, despite witnessing ourselves our whole lives, it's akin to the drawing a picture of the real thing, but not knowing how the real thing really is.

The true reality of who we are, how we exist, then needs perfect wise and fair judge to account us for who we are. And think about what gives you value, it's the eyes of love. So the Perfect Loving Being is the only accountable perfect judge and vision to who we are. It's what knows who you are perfectly and better then all other potential witnesses.

In fact, we also must somehow be connected to this witness and vision, but perceive it and borrow it's vision from a lesser viewpoint, or else we can't be accountable for who we are.

This proves God, the witness, the guidance, etc... the metaphysical spiritual nature of who we are.

There are more proofs, but this one is pretty strong and I find it very intuitive and easy to recall and see God through.

 

[Link]

Which one (godchecker) and how would one do that when there doesn't appear to be the slightest reason to think any of them are real?

God is best suited to make you see all this and know proofs that can't be denied. Search. It's not up to me to tell you which one has greater potential.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sure, I can share. Who we are is not a physical construct. If we assume Naturalism is true (nothing beyond physical world), at most we are idea/program generated by the brain.

However, in either case, we require perception and to be perceived to exist.

Now to have an exact reality and not to be an illusion of having an exact reality, we must exist in perfect sight or vision or judgment or a perfect witness must be generating us and accounting us for our deeds.

To show this is easy, just reflect on yourself and see that you are estimating who you are, but that it relies on the assumption you have an exact reality. If there was no exact reality, it would be chasing the wind and nothing to see and base the construct on.

Like a child drawing an airplane, he doesn't know all the fine tune details that go the airplane, we know so little about ourselves and how we are who we are, despite witnessing ourselves our whole lives, it's akin to the drawing a picture of the real thing, but not knowing how the real thing really is.

I can kind'a follow you there, but...

The true reality of who we are, how we exist, then needs perfect wise and fair judge to account us for who we are. And think about what gives you value, it's the eyes of love. So the Perfect Loving Being is the only accountable perfect judge and vision to who we are. It's what knows who you are perfectly and better then all other potential witnesses.

What is "perfect"? You're making the assumption that "perfect" is a word that describes something that, to you, is necessary to exist and is well defined. It's not.

In fact, we also must somehow be connected to this witness and vision, but perceive it and borrow it's vision from a lesser viewpoint, or else we can't be accountable for who we are.

Also speculation and assumptions. It's like saying, apples exist, therefore a perfect apple must exists and we must pray to it. It doesn't follow.

This proves God, the witness, the guidance, etc... the metaphysical spiritual nature of who we are.

There are more proofs, but this one is pretty strong and I find it very intuitive and easy to recall and see God through.

It fits your way of thinking, but that's how far it goes. It's not a proof in any objective sense. It's very subjective.

 

[ecco]

Yep. There are 11% atheists in the United States who said that they believe in the existence of a God. I was only trying to clarify if its statistics that was meant by that statement.

Source?

I guess you want me to look at everything published by Pew in 2010. You made the assertion:

Alright brother. Negate it.
Cheers.

Negate it? What does that mean?

Does that mean you want me to drop it or does that mean you want to retract/negate your original assertion: There are 11% atheists in the United States who said that they believe in the existence of a God.

If you want me to drop it I'll just put you into the category of people who makes DumbA** posts and then hope everyone will believe him because HE posted it.

 

[Link]

Exact precise judgment to who we are requires a perfect perceiver. It's not an assumption, it's a reminder.

 

[Link]

I can kind'a follow you there, but...
What is "perfect"? You're making the assumption that "perfect" is a word that describes something that, to you, is necessary to exist and is well defined. It's not.

Even if doesn't have to be perfect, it has to know fully the nature of our existence and deeds. The only true potential is the one who created this universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

God is best suited to make you see all this and know proofs that can't be denied. Search. It's not up to me to tell you which one has greater potential.

Why search further? I've seen many supposed "proofs" and they're all undeniably comical, rather than undeniable.

 

[Link]

Because God is the greatest thing that can be known and by definition, is more valuable then all else, it's worth the search, even if you don't find anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

Who we are is not a physical construct.

How do you know?

If we assume Naturalism is true (nothing beyond physical world), at most we are idea/program generated by the brain.

You mean our consciousness or awareness is? YOu really aren't making much sense, logically.

However, in either case, we require perception and to be perceived to exist.

Why?

Now to have an exact reality and not to be an illusion of having an exact reality, we must exist in perfect sight or vision or judgment or a perfect witness must be generating us and accounting us for our deeds.

Simply doesn't follow.

To show this is easy, just reflect on yourself and see that you are estimating who you are, but that it relies on the assumption you have an exact reality. If there was no exact reality, it would be chasing the wind and nothing to see and base the construct on.

This seems to have very little to do with showing what went before.

The rest just gets worse. Do you want to try again?

 

[Ouroboros]

Even if doesn't have to be perfect, it has to know fully the nature of our existence and deeds. The only true potential is the one who created this universe.

I don't think so. It's still an argument for something to have the full "potential" as in "perfect". It's just word play. To say "True potential" is to just say "perfect" in another way.

Computer games are all good and bad, of different qualities, but no game has ever been done is such a way that they first developed the perfect version of it and then released that down-played buggy versions.No developer has a "perfect" or "true potential" view or knowledge. They hope and believe, but they don't know. It's through process and progression it becomes better.

Same would go for God. There's really no reason God would create a perfect world first, and then create a poor quality one where the "reality" had to be for his creation. I think it's rather the reversed. The strife to become better through change is how the universe and the world works, and so would God. There's no perfection. Only better or worse.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because God is the greatest thing that can be known and by definition, is more valuable then all else, it's worth the search, even if you don't find anything.

Have you heard of "begging the question"?

 

[Link]

Why?

Who we is not a physical construct, it's a psychological idea, and all ideas require perception to exist.

 

[Link]

I don't think so. It's still an argument for something to have the full "potential" as in "perfect". It's just word play. To say "True potential" is to just say "perfect" in another way.

Computer games are all good and bad, of different qualities, but no game has ever been done is such a way that they first developed the perfect version of it and then released that down-played buggy versions.

Same would go for God. There's really no reason God would create a perfect world first, and then create a poor quality one where the "reality" had to be for his creation. I think it's rather the reversed. The strife to become better through change is how the universe and the world works, and so would God. There's no perfection. Only better or worse.

I'm saying it has to know the exact detail of all our deeds, and our nature. Do you disagree?