Are Atheists doing it wrong?

Is the refutation of God to concede to a belief in God?

Discuss.

Is the refutation of God to concede to a belief in God?

Discuss.

[Student]

Right for them may not be right for you.

Who's to say anyone's beliefs are wrong, shit...
The mailman could believe in cats from outer space that fly around in flying saucer plates that can travel through the fabric of space and re-configure the existence of objects at their will BUT as long as he's not hurting people by knowing that then it doesn't matter to me. It's only an issue when belief's take action against other belief.

You gotta belief me

[Student]

Right for them may not be right for you.

Who's to say anyone's beliefs are wrong, shit...
The mailman could believe in cats from outer space that fly around in flying saucer plates that can travel through the fabric of space and re-configure the existence of objects at their will BUT as long as he's not hurting people by knowing that then it doesn't matter to me. It's only an issue when belief's take action against other belief.

You gotta belief me

Originally Posted by Student

Right for them may not be right for you.

Who's to say anyone's beliefs are wrong, shit...
The mailman could believe in cats from outer space that fly around in flying saucer plates that can travel through the fabric of space and re-configure the existence of objects at their will BUT as long as he's not hurting people by knowing that then it doesn't matter to me. It's only an issue when belief's take action against other belief.

You gotta belief me

Great non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Student

Right for them may not be right for you.

Who's to say anyone's beliefs are wrong, shit...
The mailman could believe in cats from outer space that fly around in flying saucer plates that can travel through the fabric of space and re-configure the existence of objects at their will BUT as long as he's not hurting people by knowing that then it doesn't matter to me. It's only an issue when belief's take action against other belief.

You gotta belief me

Great non sequitur.

[NOBLE]

Everyone who is aware of the concept believes God exist. The only difference is what they believe God exists as. To some, God is a real supernatural being. To others, he's just a figment of some people's imagination, a fictitious character in religious texts. That's still a form of existence. If you say "God doesn't exist," you must have a definition for that which you call God which you claim doesn't exist. How can it have a definition yet be non-existent?

[NOBLE]

Everyone who is aware of the concept believes God exist. The only difference is what they believe God exists as. To some, God is a real supernatural being. To others, he's just a figment of some people's imagination, a fictitious character in religious texts. That's still a form of existence. If you say "God doesn't exist," you must have a definition for that which you call God which you claim doesn't exist. How can it have a definition yet be non-existent?

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Everyone who is aware of the concept believes God exist. The only difference is what they believe God exists as. To some, God is a real supernatural being. To others, he's just a figment of some people's imagination, a fictitious character in religious texts. That's still a form of existence. If you say "God doesn't exist," you must have a definition for that which you call God which you claim doesn't exist. How can it have a definition yet be non-existent?

I like this post. Probably because it aligns with my own thinking.

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Everyone who is aware of the concept believes God exist. The only difference is what they believe God exists as. To some, God is a real supernatural being. To others, he's just a figment of some people's imagination, a fictitious character in religious texts. That's still a form of existence. If you say "God doesn't exist," you must have a definition for that which you call God which you claim doesn't exist. How can it have a definition yet be non-existent?

I like this post. Probably because it aligns with my own thinking.

I think you're just combining definitions into the group "existence" there. It sounds smart and all, but if you break up that word to have more definitions. We are talking about God here, not the concept of God. God's existence isn't concrete and proven to be real. To have a definition isn't to exist. The concept of God absolutely exists, but that's not what the question was.

I think you're just combining definitions into the group "existence" there. It sounds smart and all, but if you break up that word to have more definitions. We are talking about God here, not the concept of God. God's existence isn't concrete and proven to be real. To have a definition isn't to exist. The concept of God absolutely exists, but that's not what the question was.

[Rain Matrix 2021]

Ganesha is the true God

[Rain Matrix 2021]

Ganesha is the true God

[Wayco]

It lies with the definition.

The concept exists regardless, as stated but for one to believe g0d exists then a definition they agree with must be given. Therefore the belief in gOd is subjective to the definition the believer adheres to. So even the concept of a g0d is only universal in its belief in a higher power or order. Not "g0d" itself.

Back to the definition, if a universal definition is used then the question of if people believe in g0d gets an overwhelmingly response of yes. That doesn't mean g0d actually exists though. But a definition could be used in which g0d does exist.

Back to topic, the refutation would only mean the denouncer acknowledges the belief in a g0d not that they believe in a g0d themselves. But again, the definition of g0d matters because the denier is only expressing disbelief in a definition. While this has no affect on reality or conceptualuzed versions of g0d. It doesnt make them a believer nor change anything. But g0d would exist under the right terminology and atheist would still disbelieve. That's why agnostics 'exist'. Athiesm, is total disbelief in any form of g0d. So by definition, atheists couldn't be believers. Without or without evidence. Regardless, if g0d's real.

[Wayco]

It lies with the definition.

The concept exists regardless, as stated but for one to believe g0d exists then a definition they agree with must be given. Therefore the belief in gOd is subjective to the definition the believer adheres to. So even the concept of a g0d is only universal in its belief in a higher power or order. Not "g0d" itself.

Back to the definition, if a universal definition is used then the question of if people believe in g0d gets an overwhelmingly response of yes. That doesn't mean g0d actually exists though. But a definition could be used in which g0d does exist.

Back to topic, the refutation would only mean the denouncer acknowledges the belief in a g0d not that they believe in a g0d themselves. But again, the definition of g0d matters because the denier is only expressing disbelief in a definition. While this has no affect on reality or conceptualuzed versions of g0d. It doesnt make them a believer nor change anything. But g0d would exist under the right terminology and atheist would still disbelieve. That's why agnostics 'exist'. Athiesm, is total disbelief in any form of g0d. So by definition, atheists couldn't be believers. Without or without evidence. Regardless, if g0d's real.

[Shodan]

I am God.

[Shodan]

I am God.

[Student]

We are becoming God

[Student]

We are becoming God