You claim that God does not exist.

Apparently, you do not quite grasp the difference between knowing something, and not knowing something...this explains much.

I have no absolute proof that Bigfoot does not exist, and in fact there are evidences that it might......but I do not BELIEVE it does.
In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. These ideas are not in conflict...they are pieces of my thought process.

 

Where's the dissonance, though? Nothing in my statements are contradictory. One is a reference to what I know about the world (in this case, nothing), and the other is a reference to whether I accept other peoples claims (I don't).

Imagine there is a crazy old man on the street telling you "the end is nigh!".

For all you know, it is. (I'm obviously assuming you cannot see the future. If you do, just pretend you can't)

But you surely won't simply accept his rantings as true, because you aren't an idiot.

 

I claim that a clown with a red nose is hiding in his moon base and runs the universe from there , if you say that this clown doesn't exist then you have to describe "What and Who does not exist"?

How this plays out for you ?

 

......

 

Theist claim he exist, Atheist claim there's no reason to believe he does.

 

If you have no reason to believe that God exists, then consider this:

The simple definition of reason is "1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. " Take any of those three underlined terms and apply them to your admitted position of being an Atheist then it can be conclusively stated that you do have a reason to be an Atheist. If I were to ask you now what is that basis, motive, or reason, you would more than likely say something to the effect of 'there is no evidence of the existence of God'. Yet your comments above indicates a degree of uncertainty thus limiting you to a statement of inconclusiveness. Would that inconclusive attitude be the result of insufficient evidence or of no evidence at all?

 

So...you have come to understand that "God", rather than some guy in a book, is the universe and the mysteries it contains?

THAT....I can accept.

 

Why would I define something that doesn't exist?

Unless of course I was going to write a fictional book about it.

 

Well, yeah...
After all, His son is Truth,...

Truth is congruent with the Reality it allows men to image mentally.
Hence, the father is in the son for us, and the son is in the father, etc.
Trinity.

 

....uh......yeah, okay.

 

OK, I'll bite, even though I've done this already many times on this forum, shame you missed it. I might say I consider a god to be an intelligent supernatural being with power over some or all aspects of reality.

Close. I *think* they don't exist.

 

I've always thought that line of reasoning stretched the concept of "god" a bit far.

The universe is fascinating and wondrous, but it's unliving, impersonal, unthinking, and it's not worthy of worship (in any religious sense).

 

And.....I can accept that as well. I do not know the mysteries of our existence, let alone the entire universe.
I have accumulated enough knowledge and understanding to "Know" I do not "Know". Being a relatively intelligent person, I simply find it annoying when someone claims they do know, while making it painfully clear to me they do not......especially considering it is highly unlikely ANYONE can know.

 

Thinking is a process of one person that is not known by the other person. So when the person thinking something and is only thinking that something, then it remains in the privacy of mind. On the other hand, when someone thinks something and then publishes what he/she is thinking then it is no longer confined to the privacy of mind but instead has become public notice of that thing that was thought about. A claim is made in the form of a public notice. You made the public notice of what you 'think'.

 

So you are claiming that "man made being" does not exist??????

If a scientist in a lab creates a new lifeform, a "man made being" then it does not exist?

- - - Updated - - -

So you believe that "nothing is larger than you" as an atheist?

Didn't I mention before how atheists believe the universe revolves around them, how selfish and egocentric atheists are?

Atheists believe "nothing is larger than me", how ridiculous and vain. Atheism is vanity.

 

False. Atheists lack a belief in god.

Claiming knowledge of whether or not a god exists is entirely seperate and is covered by gnosticism/agnosticism.

 

Demonstrate that the universe needs a cause.

Also, stop conflating the colloquial definition of "worship" with the religious one.

 

The universe does NOT have a definite beginning. You are working with two false premises.

 

Some atheists claim "god" doesn't exist. Most don't. Asking anyone to justify their doubts is ridiculous when those doubts are about something that was never demonstrated to be real in the first place. You justify your doubts about fairies, then maybe we can start talking about justifying doubts about "god."

And, by the way, I don't define "god." Theists do. I am happy to accept most definitions of "god" and then discuss whether there is evidence for its existence or not. If you start to describe something that we can show is actually real, though, we'll probably wind up arguing over whether the "god" label is properly applied to it.

 

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One describes belief, the other knowledge.

One (such as myself) can be an Agnostic Atheist.

 

As it seems painfully obvious you have problems understanding the written word (might explain your "interpretations" of the Bibles), I suppose attempting to correct you would be as pointless as trying to place facts in front of you has proven. I will instead place what I actually wrote below, and explain it is in answer to the question which began this thread.

At the risk of being reprimanded for what might seem an uncivil comment.....I do not believe you to have enough neural function to seriously debate in any way.

 

Actually it perfectly matches the definition of rational belief: refusing to believe in something that you do not know to exist/be true.

 

The universe is neither sentient nor almighty. The forces of the universe can be combated and resisted. No need to bow down.

 

Atheism is the default position. Theists need to present compelling evidence to justify wanting atheists to believe. Atheists do not have to present evidence to justify their lack of belief.

 

Congratulations, your post is exactly as correct as it is irrelevant.

IN MY OPINION. OMG I STATED AN OPINION, THE SKY IS FALLING!