Do you have the right to be an atheist?

[The Inquisition]

aww, this thread was going so annoyingly well, do we have to end it? Anyway, I agree with pool on one thing though, being a gnostic-atheist is pretty hard considering "god" is one of the most ill-defined terms out there, and new twisted definitions can be made up easily as pool did in the thread, but then again those gnostic-atheists do form their position based on the evidence of the plethora of god concepts, which by the way is zero evidence, so they are not wrong. But I'd love to hear from someone who outright rejects the possibility of any and all gods, what their opinion on this is.

I think it's more proper to discard the claim as being generally nonsensical/ill defined, where appropriate. "Try again later." It usually has no failure criteria, but also no success criteria either due to the lack of a coherent definition. It depends on the specific claim, of course, and how much information is given. Omni-qualities are impossible to demonstrate I think, where given. And what separates a god from a super powered alien? Once you remove all the nonsense, I think the question is more like, "Was our reality created by an intelligent being?" That's the heart of it, and a question that perhaps could actually be possible to demonstrate someday. All these super powers only cloud the issue, and are just hero worship.

It's often claimed that there is one single God as well. So even if you managed to find and prove that God, whatever the hell it is, you'd then have to prove there were no others! The success criteria then includes the apparent impossibility of proving a negative.

Of course, if a more mundane definition of God is given, then it may actually be obvious it does exist, or at least possible it does exist. This is the problem with "Is there a god?" It doesn't tell you anything meaningful with which to answer the question. We need at least some coherent information. Or else the question becomes, "Is there anything which someone might consider a god?" Yes, everything.

That's an inherent problem with theism, it's almost impossible to provide a coherent definition of god.

Christians like to jump to a number of conclusions about god, without even providing a definition that everyone would agree on, I've labelled it a presuppositional stack of assumptions, here's an example.

1. The universe exists.
2. God exists.
3. The god of the bible exists. (Jews got it right!)
4. Jesus was the son of god and exists. (Jews got it wrong!)
5. The bible is accurate and truthful about god and his son. (Jews will fry in hell)
6. The particular sect of Christianity I'm in is the Truth. (Everyone else will fry in hell)

They take one fact and go crazy with it, never looking at the house of cards they've built their world view on.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Problem with Theism

Me: Do you believe in god?
theist: Of course!He is our creator,our father.I believe in god....[more gibberish]
Me: btw,what's god?
theist: God is the creator of our world.He made us with clay[insert useless senseless shitty stupid dumbass sentences here]
Me: bruh that's confusin.gimme like a definition in 2 or 3 sentences.
thesit: *throws holy water in my face* k cool - wanna get converted?

Problem with atheism

Me: Do you believe in god?
Atheist: God?!Thats Bullshit!That's just a fairy tale.Don't be so stupid!
Me: btw,what's god?
Athesit: lol idk xp


Before you bite my head off - i meant the group of atheists that are like 100% atheists - like a big NO NO for god kind of atheists.

[Mr.wizard]

Its not the atheist's job to define god, it's the job of the person making the claim to define what they are talking about.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Its not the atheist's job to define god, it's the job of the person making the claim to define what they are talking about.

Ah.Tomato,tomato.
Believe in a god or don't believe in a god - do what you gotta do.

Theists are saying that there is a god and they don't even know what god is.
Atheists are saying that there isn't a god and they are also clueless about what god is.

Basically what theists are doing is claiming the existence of something which is nothing.
Basically what atheists are doing is denying the existence of the something,that is,nothing proposed by theists because of the lack of proof from theists to prove the existence of something which is nothing. xD

How i look at it - Both of this shit is terribly wrong.
They made a ism for believing in something which is something,that is,nothing.Then they made an ism for not believing in the something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members which is nothing,that is,something because of the lack of proof of something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members,that is,theists.

Total no brainer atleast for me anyway.

[Holden Caulfield]

Its not the atheist's job to define god, it's the job of the person making the claim to define what they are talking about.

Exactly.

That's exactly what drives me nuts about being "openly" atheist.  Everyone assumes I say god doesn't exist 100%.  No I just want you to define your god then prove to me he exists.  If you can do that using evidence I'll be a believer.  I haven't seen anyone even come close so far.

[Holden Caulfield]

Its not the atheist's job to define god, it's the job of the person making the claim to define what they are talking about.

Ah.Tomato,tomato.
Believe in a god or don't believe in a god - do what you gotta do.

Theists are saying that there is a god and they don't even know what god is.
Atheists are saying that there isn't a god and they are also clueless about what god is.

Basically what theists are doing is claiming the existence of something which is nothing.
Basically what atheists are doing is denying the existence of the something,that is,nothing proposed by theists because of the lack of proof from theists to prove the existence of something which is nothing. xD

How i look at it - Both of this shit is terribly wrong.
They made a ism for believing in something which is something,that is,nothing.Then they made an ism for not believing in the something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members which is nothing,that is,something because of the lack of proof of something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members,that is,theists.

Total no brainer atleast for me anyway.

Well your simply wrong about the definition of atheism then.  There's a very very small minority that is saying god doesn't exist.  99% of us are just saying no one has proven that god exists.  Theists are the ones putting out the premise that there's this god.  We just want proof.

For me no one has come even CLOSE to proving a god.  Then what we starting about the parameters I just don't care.  Whatever.  You put the premise in a god.  You define the parameters then make your proof.  Good luck.  If you start being able to prove it I'll become a believer in god (not worship you understand but believe).

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheists are saying that there isn't a god and they are also clueless about what god is.

*sigh*

Atheists, at least none that I know, claim that.

What they 'claim' is that there is no reason to believe in a god. Lack of belief in deities and all that. I assess claims as they are given, which is why I can outright reject an unevidenced claim whilst still being open to the possibility of there being a deity.

You're right in one aspect though, I am clueless about what a 'God' is. Never believed in one, never needed to, and I don't think I ever will on account that my life to date has been just fine without any. Nobody has ever given me a coherent definition of one let alone evidenced them.

Basically what theists are doing is claiming the existence of something which is nothing.
Basically what atheists are doing is denying the existence of the nothing proposed by theists because of the lack of proof from theists to prove the existence of something which is nothing. xD

How i look at it - Both of this shit is terribly wrong.
They made a ism for believing in something which is something,that is,nothing.Then they made an ism for not believing in the something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members which is nothing,that is,something because of the lack of proof of something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members,that is,theists.

Total no brainer atleast for me anyway.

Indecipherable. I expect the above is more of an assertion as to what atheism is rather than what it actually is.

[Mr.wizard]

Its not the atheist's job to define god, it's the job of the person making the claim to define what they are talking about.

Ah.Tomato,tomato.
Believe in a god or don't believe in a god - do what you gotta do.

Theists are saying that there is a god and they don't even know what god is.
Atheists are saying that there isn't a god and they are also clueless about what god is.

Basically what theists are doing is claiming the existence of something which is nothing.
Basically what atheists are doing is denying the existence of the something,that is,nothing proposed by theists because of the lack of proof from theists to prove the existence of something which is nothing. xD

How i look at it - Both of this shit is terribly wrong.
They made a ism for believing in something which is something,that is,nothing.Then they made an ism for not believing in the something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members which is nothing,that is,something because of the lack of proof of something,that is,nothing proposed by the former ism members,that is,theists.

Total no brainer atleast for me anyway.

No, you completely do not understand the concept of atheism. Atheism is a response to a claim, if a person says a tree is a god, it is up to that person to convince me of this in order for me to believe it, if they can not then I am perfectly justified in being an atheist.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Its not the atheist's job to define god, it's the job of the person making the claim to define what they are talking about.

Exactly.

That's exactly what drives me nuts about being "openly" atheist.  Everyone assumes I say god doesn't exist 100%.  No I just want you to define your god then prove to me he exists.  If you can do that using evidence I'll be a believer.  I haven't seen anyone even come close so far.

Actually i did that right here hahaha of course with lots of trickery that is.
I (think)proved the existence of a non-religious god by correlating this god to aliens(hence confirming their existence or the high probability of their existence) and their ability to perform supernatural phenomenon using extreme intelligence and thereby satisfying the definition of a (non-religious)god that is - "A supreme/superior being,capable of performing supernatural feats".
Maybe if i changed the definition to "A supreme/superior being of foreign orgin,capable of performing supernatural feats." i'd have a more stern position(or i could argue that nobody on earth would fit this description because of the unachievable qualities defined in the definition and hence they are of foreign orgin - no other way)but then everyone would say that i "changed" the definition of god to fit into my argument.

Bleh(the truth is),it doesn't even have a definition to begin with bruh so make up your own and convince others its the right one.

If you want a definition for religious gods i think i have one: "A supreme/superior being of foreign or domestic orgin,capable of performing supernatural feats."
I came up with this definition by generally simple observation of religious gods and i have data to support my observation.
(The domestic part because there are a shit load of religions that one of them probably have a dude that happened to be on earth and they consider(ed) him a god - ah religion you ruthless butcher )

@Mr.Wizard, Only no one is saying that a god is a tree(not talking literally,i'm talking in bounds of your analogy)they are saying that there is a god only they don't even know what god is.

[Holden Caulfield]

Exactly.

That's exactly what drives me nuts about being "openly" atheist.  Everyone assumes I say god doesn't exist 100%.  No I just want you to define your god then prove to me he exists.  If you can do that using evidence I'll be a believer.  I haven't seen anyone even come close so far.

Actually i did that right here hahaha of course with lots of trickery that is.
I (think)proved the existence of a non-religious god by correlating this god to aliens(hence confirming their existence or the high probability of their existence) and their ability to perform supernatural phenomenon using extreme intelligence and thereby satisfying the definition of a (non-religious)god that is - "A supreme/superior being,capable of performing supernatural feats".
Maybe if i changed the definition to "A supreme/superior being of foreign orgin,capable of performing supernatural feats." i'd have a more stern position(or i could argue that nobody on earth would fit this description because of the unachievable qualities defined in the definition and hence they are of foreign orgin - no other way)but then everyone would say that i "changed" the definition of god to fit into my argument.

Bleh(the truth is),it doesn't even have a definition to begin with bruh so make up your own and convince others its the right one.

If you want a definition for religious gods i think i have one: "A supreme/superior being of foreign or domestic orgin,capable of performing supernatural feats."
I came up with this definition by generally simple observation of religious gods and i have data to support my observation.
(The domestic part because there are a shit load of religions that one of them probably have a dude that happened to be on earth and they consider(ed) him a god - ah religion you ruthless butcher )

Is it truly supernatural if humans one day have the potential one day understand and perform those supernatural acts?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke

Advanced technology or understanding is by no one's definition suffient for proof as god, IMO.  While I believe aliens exist (not in the Roswell/abduction crap, but in principle in the universe) them being more advanced is not proof of god any more than modern western civilization vs uncontacted tribes in South America or Africa.

Personally I really think your jumping when you equate more intelligent/advanced technology or feats to the supernatural.  Supernatural is something that defies not only the known laws of physics/science but also the unknown truths that are still yet unknown.  If something can be understood, even if it's millenia ahead of humanity, it's not supernatural. Even if you change it to something humans can't do you leave out the fact humans can't change colour...whereas for example charmeleons can. It has to be something that can be shown and proven AND shown that it's be allowed.

But this is getting into specific theoretical god arguments. Which you can't prove exist. So we are back where we started. Can you prove any of it? No. So no god that you can prove.