The One Thing the Atheist Misunderstands

[DaddyMoreBucks]

In order to not believe in something you must first have a CONCEPT of what EXACTLY that is.

There is no way to exactly have a concept of a non existent entity. It does not exist. Simple.

Exactly so either the guys is a total moron (the popular opinion) or he is not a moron and he knows it is impossible to have a concept of a non existent entity due to the fact that, as you state, it is simple.

Perhaps what he means is more complex than what you have imagined by one tiny notch.

If you define God as non-existent then of course God cannot exits DUH.

but if you define EXISTENCE as God. Then not only do you then have a real physical God you can see part of, from your perspective, and touch, and hear, and interact with, but the need to prove the reality of which becomes a huge laugh haha as woop there It is, so you also have the DUH part too lol

And then suddenly all those craggy old stupid religious books start to make sense to you in the most Enlightening way.

[Thumpalumpacus]

but if you define EXISTENCE as God. Then not only do you then have a real physical God you can see part of, from your perspective, and touch, and hear, and interact with, but the need to prove the reality of which becomes a huge laugh haha as woop there It is, so you also have the DUH part too lol

And then suddenly all those craggy old stupid religious books start to make sense to you in the most Enlightening way.

Oddly enough, I haven't read one religious book which defines existence itself as god.

I'd offer you my share of the "duh" part, but it looks like you already snagged it.

[IATIA]

Oddly enough, I haven't read one religious book which defines existence itself as god.

That depends on what one considers a 'religious book'. Generally I would expect it to be a doctrine of sort to set the path for worship, in which case, I do not think there is any. However, I have read that specific idea somewhere and at the time mulled it over, but it became just as illogical as any god.

[dyresand]

Oddly enough, I haven't read one religious book which defines existence itself as god.

That depends on what one considers a 'religious book'. Generally I would expect it to be a doctrine of sort to set the path for worship, in which case, I do not think there is any. However, I have read that specific idea somewhere and at the time mulled it over, but it became just as illogical as any god.

There is many books i'm looking at the flying spaghetti monster one.
i can have lots of beer so that's a plus.

[abaris]

Oddly enough, I haven't read one religious book which defines existence itself as god.

I've read quite a lot neo pagan books. And they're usually alluring to nature, including humans, as being god. So basically pantheism.

[DaddyMoreBucks]

Oddly enough, I haven't read one religious book which defines existence itself as god.

The Bible is analogies and metaphors.

Jesus said, “I and the Father are ONE”. Didn't they nail him to something for saying that part in particular?

Lets look at John (My favorite gospel) it is in a religious book called the Bible you might want to read.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

How does that not read like God is Everything?

In the beginning was the word AND.
the word (vibrations? frequencies?) was WITH God (in the same place and as we are about to learn in no way seperate)
And the Word WAS God. (as He is the same thing just described. Clearly a metaphor for the complex thought of the paradox of existence)

King James Bible I am using for referance because it is as close as we are going to get to root meanings without going to ancient greek language. which I can do also if you like….

John 1:2
The same was in the beginning with God.

Is to say, “You can substitute the words GOD and WORD for each other all of it is still God even if you go back the to beginning.”
it does not mean the word is sitting next to God as we know from the 1st statement… God IS the word and vice versa.

John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So not one atom or electron or quark or chemical or kitty cat or galaxy is not made by HIM.

Hmmm, How can he make quarks?
Think about it. He would have to be all of the components in order to make something from them.

try to say it in old english and you get John 1:3
one of the Bibles main proofs God is all things.

For without Him was constructed NOTHING.
‘not anything made that was made’ does NOT mean some stuff was made without God lol
this is OLD ENGLISH.
They talked like that.
They would say,”God made the cake. Without God was not any cake made of the cake that was made.
meaning – All this cake here is made by God.
Not – we made a bunch of cakes but those over there were made without God and these here were made with God …
They just said that not any cake was made without God.

Old English.

John 1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

saying part of God is the light that gives us life.
The Sun and stars and the by product of fire basically.
I say part of God because they say "In Him"
To say "In him was a strong farmer and a kind man" about someone then meant that one of the characteristics about the person being described is that they were a strong farmer and another is that they were kind.

John 1:5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
yeah… lol no explanation needed here...

John 1:6
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

we are ALL sent from God… One of them was named John…

John 1:7
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe

Light clearly being used esoterically as a metaphor for life and for God since John 1:4
He came to say to others, “hey guys I see GOD!”
to witness (see a real thing and testify to its reality) so that others may even believe in what he already can see so that they too will then be able to see it.

John 1:8
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Which is to say he is not a ego freak thinking He is God. He is seeing God and telling about It. Like me.

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

aka God. (the author indicating a common unity here so the mind can grasp the concept. It must be something real that everyone can see because it is what gives us life. Very clearly defined here in old english)

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

If I built a house is that house not part of me? Would you not say so? is it not my garden in my yard as it is my hands and my feet?
this is old english. this is how they spoke to each other about common things.

This verse is NOT saying God is seperate from the world. It is saying he is everything in that world plus whatever may have created It. The LIFE of life. And that that world still fails to see Him despite witnesses. What could be more worthy of a book?

John 1:11
He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

yeah boy do I know that feeling LOL

I can go on here for literally ALL of the Bible as I have studied It in multiple languages for OVER 40 years. With several college courses and personal mentorships and the reading of pretty much everything they ever found in a cave for the last 6000 years or so….

not to brag, I'm just saying what the guy posted is backed up by the Bible and just about every religious text ever written. Especially in the old original translations from ancient Greek.

The Bible describes the evolving of God
aka (also known as) Life Itself.

[Creed of Heresy]

Blaaah blah blah blah, blah, blah blah LOL blah blah blah blah lol lol lol blah (Paraphrased)

[abaris]

Jesus said, “I and the Father are ONE”. Didn't they nail him to something for saying that part in particular?

Only if you accept that this person ever existed, having some kind of personality disorder and being actually nailed to the cross. Which wouldn't have happened if he said the above, since the Romans couldn't have given a shit about some mad person roaming the land saying stupid things. The land was ripe with them at that particular time.

And congratulations, you take the bending and stretching of bible verses to a whole new level to suit your agenda. Which only proves that everyone can pick his cheries from that not too well written book.

[Esquilax]

So i think the message here is that when you look at life as an atheist and believe NASA you have nothing between you and the justification of your evil acts upon others. We are dust in the wind who cares. To you it will all seem fair as fair gets. Who would know better than you right?

Oh, hello person who lives in a universe without any other people in it! It's a bit strange to see you posting on an internet forum; after all, there are no other people in your universe, so who would be there to respond?

On the other hand, I live in a universe that is filled with billions of other living individuals of my species, and a multitude of other living creatures besides. Now, I know in your universe reality is empty and nobody is around, and so there really is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you like, but in mine there's this concept called "empathy," which is where you imagine yourself in the shoes of another person and can use that to determine whether or not you yourself would appreciate the action you're about to perform on that other person. Obviously since you're perpetually alone this isn't an issue, but since in my universe it's possible to care about other people, and since we've evolved to be empathetic and society-building as a survival mechanism, there are numerous justifications for moral behavior and the absence of evil behavior. Now you know something about a universe with humans in it!

I guess my point is this: you might be a complete moral destitute whose only reason for not being evil is the threats and cajoling of a magic space wizard, but don't you dare think that everyone is as psychopathic as you. Some of us were raised in universes full of people, and we have reasons other than the carrot and stick for being moral.

but if you define EXISTENCE as God. Then not only do you then have a real physical God you can see part of, from your perspective, and touch, and hear, and interact with, but the need to prove the reality of which becomes a huge laugh haha as woop there It is, so you also have the DUH part too lol

If I define god as existence then all I've done is defined an utterly vapid concept, as I already have a definition of existence that encompasses the parts of existence that actually seem to... you know, exist. I have no reason to attach the god label to it, because all the attributes of god that you seem to want to sneak in without justification by definitional fiat are not readily present within the universe. In essence, you're asking me to use a definition which has extra baggage that we can't demonstrate, when we already have a term that works with what the universe actually seems to be.

I'm not willing to make that leap in service to your dishonest little word game.

And then suddenly all those craggy old stupid religious books start to make sense to you in the most Enlightening way.

No, they still don't make sense. And apparently the only reason they make sense to you is because you're spinning them all through this metaphorical prism that you have no justification for using beyond that it allows you to come to the conclusions that you already wanted to reach. Sorry, but presuppositions like that aren't allowed here.

[Creed of Heresy]

---

So i think the message here is that when you look at life as an atheist and believe NASA you have nothing between you and the justification of your evil acts upon others. We are dust in the wind who cares. To you it will all seem fair as fair gets. Who would know better than you right?

Oh, hello person who lives in a universe without any other people in it! It's a bit strange to see you posting on an internet forum; after all, there are no other people in your universe, so who would be there to respond?

On the other hand, I live in a universe that is filled with billions of other living individuals of my species, and a multitude of other living creatures besides. Now, I know in your universe reality is empty and nobody is around, and so there really is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you like, but in mine there's this concept called "empathy," which is where you imagine yourself in the shoes of another person and can use that to determine whether or not you yourself would appreciate the action you're about to perform on that other person. Obviously since you're perpetually alone this isn't an issue, but since in my universe it's possible to care about other people, and since we've evolved to be empathetic and society-building as a survival mechanism, there are numerous justifications for moral behavior and the absence of evil behavior. Now you know something about a universe with humans in it!

I guess my point is this: you might be a complete moral destitute whose only reason for not being evil is the threats and cajoling of a magic space wizard, but don't you dare think that everyone is as psychopathic as you. Some of us were raised in universes full of people, and we have reasons other than the carrot and stick for being moral.

but if you define EXISTENCE as God. Then not only do you then have a real physical God you can see part of, from your perspective, and touch, and hear, and interact with, but the need to prove the reality of which becomes a huge laugh haha as woop there It is, so you also have the DUH part too lol

If I define god as existence then all I've done is defined an utterly vapid concept, as I already have a definition of existence that encompasses the parts of existence that actually seem to... you know, exist. I have no reason to attach the god label to it, because all the attributes of god that you seem to want to sneak in without justification by definitional fiat are not readily present within the universe. In essence, you're asking me to use a definition which has extra baggage that we can't demonstrate, when we already have a term that works with what the universe actually seems to be.

I'm not willing to make that leap in service to your dishonest little word game.

And then suddenly all those craggy old stupid religious books start to make sense to you in the most Enlightening way.

No, they still don't make sense. And apparently the only reason they make sense to you is because you're spinning them all through this metaphorical prism that you have no justification for using beyond that it allows you to come to the conclusions that you already wanted to reach. Sorry, but presuppositions like that aren't allowed here.

---