Atheism: hatred of God ideology

[Creed of Heresy]

Atheism dehumanizes those who hold it and dehumanizes society.

Back this claim up with evidence, or I dismiss it as readily as I dismiss the existence of unicorns.

If you do not back this claim up with evidence [and I mean statistical evidence or observed evidence, not more claims from religious sources who claim to be the authority on the "human spirit" when such a thing has never been shown to exist as it is] then I will be forced to assume you are simply just insulting and demeaning us for the sake of some pithy, dull-witted attempt at boosting your own ego.

I already dismiss your doctorate as anything worthwhile or meaningful. I've looked you up and tried to find something you've done that has any real sway or credibility. Nothing. Just a freewebs page. Ah, yes, freewebs...the website of choice for the SERIOUS doctor...

[Dr.Barré]

Oh.. I wasn't aware I hated a fictional being...
Which god are you talking about?

Atheism presupposes an erroneous definition of God. It posits that God is Existence. This deification of Existence is warranted by the vastness and complexity of the cosmos. Hence, Pantheism.

If God is Existence, then the denial of God is a denial of Existence.

That God is a ficitional being is an unsupported and therefore worthless proposition.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Yeah.

WTF?

[TaraJo]

If God is Existence, then the denial of God is a denial of Existence.

Nope. The definition of God is not 'existence.' Take a look:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

And, just for good measure, I'm gonna look up the term 'existence' too.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...1356182234

Do you understand the difference between the two words? Because unless and until you can figure that out, I think you need to go away.

[frankiej]

Does no one else seem to care that he is breaking rules by having more than one account?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

God has many faces. Most of them ugly.

[Creed of Heresy]

That God is a ficitional being is an unsupported and therefore worthless proposition.

If you refer to god as existence, or existence as to god, then sure. You're essentially doing little more than arguing semantics at this point. I can call my life "god," because to me my existence is everything and it is all-encompassing of me. But I don't, and you know why? Because I have no need to put forth an additional term to something I experience to be real; it is simply "existence."

You are simply switching terms around and calling it a theism. I see no need to worship the universe, however, therefore I see no need to call it a theism. The universe neither demands nor needs your worship; indeed, the universe is remarkably apathetic towards us. It shows no need of worship. Of study, however, yes, we study it every day.

Atheism, however, is in the broadest sense, the simple nonbelief in a god. You call the universe god. We do not. We call the universe reality.

It is little more than semantics. By YOUR view, atheism makes no sense. But to those of us who see no need to attribute deistic qualities to the universe, it makes plenty of sense.

[Tiberius]

Pantheism does not distinguish creator from creation. It is not a redifinition. It is a different definition.

If creator = creation, and God is existence, then I have no qualms with that. Obviously I believe in existence, so if you want to call existence God, then I guess by that definition I believe in God. However, I call myself an atheist because the vast majority of other definitions of God refer to some supernatural being with a certain range of powers. That God, I cannot believe in.

I think you are confusing matters by not stating your definitions at the start. I mean, it would be like if I asked someone if they believed in Thor, they said no, I accused them of being illogical, etc, and then after my rant, I reveal that Thor was my cat, who had been in the room all this time.

---

Does no one else seem to care that he is breaking rules by having more than one account?

I've sent a PM offering to merge them. Why he has two is as yet unanswered. Could be he forgot his password and couldn't find the "forgot my password" feature.

[Dr.Barré]

If creator = creation, and God is existence, then I have no qualms with that. Obviously I believe in existence, so if you want to call existence God, then I guess by that definition I believe in God. However, I call myself an atheist because the vast majority of other definitions of God refer to some supernatural

I did state my definition of God as pantheistic from the beginning of this thread. I am not arbitrarily "calling' existence God. I argue it. The deification of existence is warranted by the seemly limitedless size and complexity of the universe which science has dramattically revealed. The cosmos is infinitely incomprehensible.

[The Grand Nudger]

How, precisely, does vastness or complexity warrant deification? I can name, off the top of my head, at least a dozen things within sight and reach that are "vast and complex". None of which appear to be gods. Speaking of vastness and complexity, at the core of it, just how complex -is- something when reduction works so well? When it is simply a conglomerate of exceedingly simple pieces? Vast according to whom,tiny verbose primates? Unimpressive.