Atheists cannot disbelieve or reject GOD without defining HIM.

Atheists cannot disbelieve or reject GOD without defining HIM.

How can a person reject a belief, when they don't even understand the definition of the belief? Atheists need to read the Bible, before their "rejection of God" has any validity or rationality. An atheist who claims to "not believe in God", without reading the Bible, is dishonest and a liar.

You need to have a basic understanding of GOD, which atheists do not, before saying they can "reject" God.


Let's say a rare atheist, one in a billion, actually looks into GOD, seeks GOD, and says, "No, I still reject GOD." How can this be, when, God's existence does not require the "approval" or "acceptance" of a lowly mortal and moral being, like an atheist?

Does a father need his son's approval and acceptance to exist, to exist? Does a son need to believe in his father, before his father exists physically, mentally, and spiritually? No, GOD exists objectively. An atheist's pathetic "approval" is not an issue. The problem with atheists and atheism, is that it is subjective, not objective thinking. Atheists are irrational, and I say further, intellectually inferior.

 

This fails on so many levels, the difficulty would be knowing where to begin addressing it. But there's really no point in addressing it at all. We know how it turns out. When someone hasn't been reasoned into their position, they can't be reasoned out of it.

Heretic, you just enjoy believing your nonsense. The atheists have more interesting things to care about.

 

LOOOOOOL, you're so spiteful, Mr. Atheist. You don't have anything more interesting to care about. Just admit that I'm right and you're wrong, and you need to rethink your atheist religion and mystical belief system. You're just angry that you belief in false gods and fake virtues.

 

The definition of God varies by religion to religion and between sect to sect. How about the people claiming there is a God or gods comes to a consensus first?

 

No, you are shucking and jiving here. YOU STILL NEED TO DEFINE GOD, if you want any validity, rationality, or "logic", according to your religious, atheistic beliefs. If you claim that you don't believe something exists, then you should still be able, at least, to define what it is you're rejecting.

We theists have defined GOD, put forth efforts, by prophets and all the wise men of the world, for thousands of years. What have "atheists" done???? NOTHING!

Atheists want to dodge, as usual. Atheists need to define what it is they "don't believe in", before claiming any semblance of rationality.

A mind cannot reject what it does not know. Atheists must first KNOW GOD, before it is even remotely possible that they "reject GOD". And they do not. Atheists do not "reject GOD", because you ignorant minds do not first KNOW GOD.

KNOW GOD!!!!!!!!!!!! SEEK HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is what I say.

 

Clearly, you have a deep emotional need to believe that. Why?

Clearly, you have a deep emotional need to believe that as well. After all, I obviously have many more interesting things to think about than your rambling theobabble. For example, I'm now thinking about why you show such rage towards anyone who fails to bow down to your grand pronouncements of HowTheWorldMustBe. You weren't born thinking like that, so what's the root cause of that behavior?

 

I think your first statement is exactly correct and I've said it many times before.

An atheist (or anyone) cannot deny an assertion before they have defined (to themselves) all the terms in the assertion.

What god do atheists deny? Do they deny one who tests man? I do too, but I'm not atheist. Do they deny a god who punishes man? I do too, but I'm no atheist. Do they deny a god who creates man, lets him suffer for 80 years then brings him to Heaven (instead of just bringing him to Heaven right away, like a loving God would)? I deny this kind of god too, but I'm no atheist.

So at this point atheists conclude, there is not God.

Ridiculous. Of course there is. Atheists just haven't come upon the definition of God which they would recognize with, "Ohhhhhh, I see. Okay, that is a definition of God that I am willing and happy to accept."

Every effect in the universe has a cause and yet the atheists are willing to accept that ONE THING, the creation of the universe, does NOT have a cause. If you state God as the cause, they say, "So if everything needs a cause, why doesn't God need a cause?"-- good question. Why doesn't God need a cause?

Because God is not a personality. God is incorporeal. Indeed, God IS cause. And 'cause' is the one thing that does not need a cause. (or you might say that it is its own cause- it has cause within itself)

Again, God is NOT a personality. God is Principle, not person; and NOT matter.

 

I deny any supernatural beings have created the Universe without evidence. That covers just about every definition of God, including a deist definition.

Yeah, and you still can't come to a (*)(*)(*)(*) conclusion about what he is.

We don't believe in any of the definitions of God that have been put forth. And anyways, why would we define something we don't believe in? YOU are the one that believes in a God, how would we know about attributes of something we don't accept? We have to be told what it is you believe in before we can deny it.

Do you believe in Bigfoot? If you don't, how can you reject something you don't know? Have you met Bigfoot? I have, he exists.

 

Everything in this Universe has another PHYSICAL cause. You are claiming that a nonphysical God caused something physical. Literally something from nothing. You can't apply the same laws of the Universe, obviously.

 

How do you know that GOD isn't physical, when you can't even DEFINE HIM????????

 

You have hit it, Grasping.

A nonphysical God could NOT have caused the physical universe.

If fact, NOTHING could have caused the physical universe. It must be a mental phenomenon.

By the way, what do YOU think caused the physical universe? If you think it's randomness, or just the passage of time, that also is literally something from nothing, you know.

Show me how much you know. I'm on your side, know it or not.

 

Because if you are going to claim God as a physical being, it would require that he/she/it also has to conform to the laws of nature i.e., having a cause.

 

“If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones …


Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21

 

I have no idea how this Universe started or if it even truly did. We have no evidence to suggest that it started at any point; we only have evidence to suggest it was at one point infinitely dense/hot and then one day expanded.

And as for the claim about a mental process: can you give me one example of a physical entity coming into existence through a mental process? Also, every mental process we know has to have a brain to work. Even if you are suggesting a mental process caused the Universe, exactly what brain did this mental process come from?

 

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (NIV)

Leviticus 20:10



You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery. (AMP)

Exodus 22:18




Yeah, lets keep getting advice from this fantasy book........

 

Can anyone here deny the schlortiblorfest without defining it precisely?

Actually, everyone can. Every possible entity in the universe, other than this god-thing, can be denied without defining it. The god-thing apparently gets a special-pleading fallacy applied to it.

 

I'm going to skip steps, because you're smarter than most, and get to the meat.

Recognize that we have no proof that thought is a product of brain. There seems to be some connection of course, but that connection is a false belief. As a matter of fact, thought is all there is. Brain is just another thought. It's the thought that 'thought cannot exist without some 'creator''.

Matter is a false belief. This belief "exists" in what we might call 'mortal mind', or the mind of mortals. The claim is that something other than this mind must exist.

In reality, there is one Mind only. This is the Mind that may be called God. Man, you and me, are not matter, but idea.- the 'image and likeness' of the infinite Mind (called 'God' in the Bible).

So-called mortal mind as mentioned above CLAIMS to be us, claims that I have a body and a 'mortal mind', and that you do.

But as this belief of a personal mind is let go of, yielding to the understanding that there is only one Mind, God, Love, we will step-by-step fall away from seeing ourselves as material or mortal-minded. On the path of this understanding is the healing of disease, sin, death and all discord, since it is unreal anyway. Jesus knew this. He was the first to know it.Her wasn't "magical", he was smart.

I'm leaving now. We'll talk if you like.

 

You're missing the whole point.............

It doesn't matter how I define GOD, it's become very clear, that it matters what YOU BELIEVE IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you refuse to believe in God, then does that mean you also have no definition of God? NO!!!!! That's what we've already established. Atheism, as you put it, is invalid, because it is inherently irrational.

 

What does this topic have to do with the chastity of young girls, Friendly? STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I know what it is I'm rejecting...

 

Hey, schlortiblorfest is a Polish word for 'extraordinary'. You see, you COULDN'T deny or support its existence until defined. You don't KNOW that a word is garbledegook until you can define it or know that it has no definition.

I know the definition of leprachaun. Therefore I can deny that it exists.
I don't know the definition of "ilu3209548702394jk gk***&#", therefore I can't rationally deny its existence.

P.S I'm kidding about 'schlortiblorfest'.

 

What about the Watchmaker's Watchmaker?

The idea of God solving the problem of creation is moot, it too is an endless circle.

 

That's the funny thing - atheists are supposedly rejecting something they don't understand, yet when you ask the faithful about God, he's beyond all human comprehension

 

if they do not believe any gods exists they do not need to define anything

your right, though if they only do not believe in some gods, they can say I do not believe in the Jewish God, which would include Muslims, Christians, or they could say I do not believe in the Sun or Son God, ect

same as someone that believes in all gods can say "in God we trust" without defining any particular God


.

 

Can atheists define God, then????????

This would mean, that Atheists KNOW GOD, but make a "rational" choice to REJECT HIM. How? How is that even remotely possible?

You would claim that an atheist knows more about GOD, then theists and theologians, who spend their whole lives studying and devoting themselves to HIM????