• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why atheism and atheists are just wrong

dfnj

Well-Known Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."
 
American Atheist Association: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god... It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods...To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheism is "simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods" yet "To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods"

thinking-face_1f914.png


"Siri, what does disbelief mean?"
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Can't say I understand the point of the OP.

Atheism is clear enough and reasonable enough. Some people simply have no need for any conception of deity.

There is room to defend the validity of some of those conceptions (not all), but that in no way invalidates atheism itself.

I don't know what exactly the OP got wrong about atheism, but quite mistaken it is all the same.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."
Interesting that you tell us how "atheists define God," and then having done so, you go on to ignore God completely. That is, not only are you not giving a description of God, you are writing as if God doesn't exist for you.

I also think you get lost in the supposed-mysticism of quantum mechanics. I will agree that I cannot know what might be called "objective reality," but I accept that there is in any case a reality. The reason that I cannot know that reality objectively is because I'm part of it, and therefore my experience must be subjective. The bee and I do not see the petal of the rose in the same way -- because the bee has a compound eye while I don't, and because we see a different portion of the spectrum (the bee sees beyond into the ultraviolet, which I do not). And yet -- the flower is still there. I can smell it, and the bee can collect nectar from it and get pollen stuck to itself.

But I most certainly do not agree when you say the "scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind." There's nothing you could present that would demonstrate that, and I think that it is pure fantasy on your part - a fantasy that is based in part on our own human ability to posit the existence of other minds.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."


Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If people want to believe in sky fairies, leprechauns, bronze age magic men with no evidence whatsoever thats up to them. I should think the same courtesy should be applied to those who consider the lack of evidence for fairies, leprechauns, bronze age magic men to be a consideration in not believing in them

So now please show me this evidence you claim i am ignoring. Lets review it and see if it stands logical scrutiny, if its able to be verified and whether its falsifiable.

I find it rather interesting that you, a theist are so bold in saying what atheists are... Hell from your op it seems you are completely clueless on the matter
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

It is a mistake to use half-understood concepts from science in your arguments.

1) You cannot have a wave of energy. Energy is a property of a physical system, not an entity in its own right. You cannot have a jug of energy.

2) It is meaningless to say that QM has shown nature is not made of material substance. Matter is modelled in QM as consisting of wave-particle entities. These entities are what we mean when we speak of material substance.

3)It is nonsense to say that anything spiritual is involved in the idea of wave function collapse. There is no need for a conscious observer. This is an old and widely prevalent misunderstanding among non-scientists. What collapses the wave function is the interaction of the system with something.

Hysterical talk of "blasphemy" does you no credit either and references to skunks are especially uncalled for. Are you drunk?

Philosophical materialism, or physicalism, is a perfectly respectable and defensible world view. Science however has nothing to say about world views. There is nothing in science that argues for or against religious belief. Trying to call science in evidence one way or the other is a major error.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".
As I understand the atheist position it's: "So far I haven't seen any convincing evidence for the existence of a god, therefore I have no rational basis for believing one exists; however, tell me what your god is and provide convincing evidence for its existence and I'll change my mind."

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.
I'd say nice strawman, but it isn't even nice, just self-serving (obviously) and pretentious (amusingly so).

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale.
And you know this to be a fact because ____________________________fill in the blank______________________________________ .

.
.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries. Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose. All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects. In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance. But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism. To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo. It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

I may go into more detail, even though I am a Theist I can easily conclude that the argument for atheism is by far more logical, rational, coherent, and meaningful than the above post.

"A skunk can smell his own skunk, but to the skunk it is perfume."

To yourself you smell wonderful.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The way I understand atheism is from the American Atheist Association:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

Good enough, but you seem to ignore this in what follows.

Atheists who claim there is no evidence for the existence of God seem to have a very precise definition for the word "God". For these people, there is a presupposition God or gods must be a thing "out there" to be experienced like an object. Objects have definitions. Objects have limitations. Objects have boundaries.

Hmmm...if there isn't a definition, then how do we know if we are talking about the same entity (thing?)? And if you don't define it, how am I to know if I believe in it or not?

The thing is every definition of the idea of God I have ever read in religious texts describes God as being infinite, without boundaries, and transcendent. However, presupposing God is a "thing" presupposes God has finite boundaries.
I'm not sure why you think that. I can easily enough consider an infinite universe without boundaries as a 'thing'. So being a 'thing' doesn't negate the possibility of being infinite.

Since only "things" can be experienced as real in the minds of atheists, there is a presupposition to what it means for God to exist. It's not just that there is no evidence for the existence of God. What atheists are really saying is there is no evidence for the existence of God the way atheists have defined what the word "God" means.
No, there is no evidence for the existence because to exist means to be a thing. Without a definition, there is nothing to even talk about, so the question of existence is literally meaningless.

I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

OK, so what do you mean by the concept of 'God'?

As far as I am concerned atheists have it all wrong. There is no such thing as an objective reality. There are no "objects" and reality has a purpose.
OK, already I disagree with you in two separate ways. Yes, there is an objective reality (although perhaps not so much on the quantum level) and no, there is not evident purpose.

All the measurements made by human beings and their devices create arbitrary distinctions in language. These distinctions create abstract representations of reality. These distinctions are not real and are purely delusional. The word "reality" is not reality. In reality, there are no objects.

Well, OK, then. I don't see anything left to discuss in that case.

In reality, there are only waves of energy in every possible direction where everything is connected to everything else. And as experiments in quantum mechanics have shown, at the smallest possible scale of measurement, nature is not made of material substance.
Um, no. That is NOT what it says. It *does* say that classical notions of 'material' need to be modified.

But reality only exists as potential possibilities that do not become realized without some strangely spiritual element deciding something is being observed. The scientific evidence seems to suggest our entire reality is part of some kind of higher dimensional mind.

Um, no. It does not say that. it doesn't even suggest that.

Most atheists simply ignore all the evidence and implications of the evidence coming from measurements being done at the smallest possible scale. Atheists have an absolute dogmatic belief in philosophical materialism.

Hmmm....I accept conclusions based on quantum mechanics that the universe is local but that 'realism' at all times is false. Yet I am also a materialist, where the notion of materialism is *defined* in terms of quantum physics.

To suggest the scientific evidence is supporting the idea that reality is strangely spiritual is completely taboo.
No, not taboo. Simply wrong.

It is the greatest possible blasphemy within their religion of philosophical materialism because it requires the atheist to do a complete overhaul of their entire belief system. Most atheist will not even admit there's and issue. The denial just goes to prove the age old adage, "A skunk can't smell his own stink."

I disagree that quantum mechanics requires an overhaul of any belief system other than classical determinism and classical realism. Why you mistake those for atheism (which, as your quote above notes, is just a lack of belief in deities), is anyone's guess.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Can't say I understand the point of the OP.

Atheism is clear enough and reasonable enough. Some people simply have no need for any conception of deity.

There is room to defend the validity of some of those conceptions (not all), but that in no way invalidates atheism itself.

I don't know what exactly the OP got wrong about atheism
Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Nothing more, nothing less.

If people want to believe in sky fairies, leprechauns, bronze age magic men with no evidence whatsoever thats up to them. I should think the same courtesy should be applied to those who consider the lack of evidence for fairies, leprechauns, bronze age magic men to be a consideration in not believing in them

So now please show me this evidence you claim i am ignoring. Lets review it and see if it stands logical scrutiny, if its able to be verified and whether its falsifiable.

I find it rather interesting that you, a theist are so bold in saying what atheists are... Hell from your op it seems you are completely clueless on the matter
You use a scientific standard, but science isn´t the only way to define reality, the whole point. Is wisdom falsifiable, or love ? Yet they exist.

By making the point that all matter is really just sub atomic particles, materialism becomes an illusion, nothing is what it appears to be, there are no cars, or rocks or people.

So, falsify a telephone pole, it doesn´t exist, only unseen particles.

In that reality, You, another clump of particles, are completely unable to smell, touch, see, hear or
taste God.

Yet, he exists all the same.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You use a scientific standard, but science isn´t the only way to define reality, the whole point. Is wisdom falsifiable, or love ? Yet they exist.

By making the point that all matter is really just sub atomic particles, materialism becomes an illusion, nothing is what it appears to be, there are no cars, or rocks or people.

So, falsify a telephone pole, it doesn´t exist, only unseen particles.

In that reality, You, another clump of particles, are completely unable to smell, touch, see, hear or
taste God.

Yet, he exists all the same.

Surely the discussion was evidence, not emotion.

Yet my real cat was killed by a real car just a week ago, that is no illusion. Your understanding of QM is not required to make a telegraph pole real

You can provide evidence that god exists, which god? I know of over 4000 that have been worshipped in history, 3800 of them were the one god who created the earth, how does that work? Oh and that doesnt include the 330 million Hindu gods
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You use a scientific standard, but science isn´t the only way to define reality, the whole point. Is wisdom falsifiable, or love ? Yet they exist.

By making the point that all matter is really just sub atomic particles, materialism becomes an illusion, nothing is what it appears to be, there are no cars, or rocks or people.

So, falsify a telephone pole, it doesn´t exist, only unseen particles.

In that reality, You, another clump of particles, are completely unable to smell, touch, see, hear or
taste God.

Yet, he exists all the same.
Sorry, I still fail to see the point.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
I think this is a fundamental problem with the way atheists think about God. I think for them to be true to themselves, they should not use the word God in any sentence as if they know exactly how the word God must be defined. I can't tell you how many times I've seen atheists use the word God in a sentence where the word God is an "object" with limitations to be experience in reality the same way you and I can hold and have an experience of an "apple".

Your argument feels like a dodge to me.

We atheists cannot be expected to know everyone's personal definition of this fictional being. But some of us atheists are concerned about religion, and it has to be fair for us to debate, using the common definitions of god that the religious use.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You use a scientific standard, but science isn´t the only way to define reality, the whole point. Is wisdom falsifiable, or love ? Yet they exist.


By making the point that all matter is really just sub atomic particles, materialism becomes an illusion, nothing is what it appears to be, there are no cars, or rocks or people.

Of course there are. There are actually rocks, cars, and people. They are just made of subatomic particles. I'm not sure why you think that means materialism is an illusion.

So, falsify a telephone pole, it doesn´t exist, only unseen particles.

No. The telephone pole exists *as a collection of subatomic particles*.

In that reality, You, another clump of particles, are completely unable to smell, touch, see, hear or
taste God.

Yet, he exists all the same.

What, then, does it even mean to say something exists?
 
Top