Even if you choose not to believe in god, you’re actually believing in god

[KevinM1]

I've taken the liberty of condensing the OP:

[Anomalocaris]

Because, god is omni-present, and omni-being and omni-everywhere, so even in absence it’s there for there is no such thing as true absence.

So i heard that recently and i would like to hear from atheists here what you all think of this statement.

Thanks

Because God is absent, nonexistent, and nowhere, so even in presence it's not there for there is no such thing as a nonexistent thing being present.

So even with complete faith in God you still totally don't believe in God. Which is good for you.

I like to hear from theists what you all think of this statement.

Thanks.

[Losty]

Welcome to the forum

That makes no sense at all. You're saying there's always something everywhere... so therefor that something is God? Sounds like you're just calling the universe God or something.

You might like to start by defining what God means, as specifically as possible. Also, you could add why anyone should care if there is such a thing.

Thanks kindly for the warm welcoming, to be clear, now 26 years of age, ive been an atheist up until a year ago, the change was based on the science first, experience later. So at the very least, i would hope no one thinks of me as a religious person, or some god pusher.

Just to note - I only mean to defend this statement to provoke any fermentation of out of the box thinking that may eventuate from this ^^

So to begin, yes one can identify the universe and god as the same thing. Which they indeed are, the only difference is your personal attachment to one or the other in your beliefs of what you may think can only constitute what the universe truly is or isnt.

God means energy in all states of being, from material, to consciousness. All that connects etc etc

Without going into a need for a long breath of explanation, the only difference between an atheistic mindset of the universe and theistic mindset of god, is that the definition of universe a theist believes in, holds that consciousness permeates all, where as an atheist holds consciousness is subject to the material. This will most likely be the major point of discussion if there is to be one on this topic.

The only difference?? I think you might be confusing theistic for deistic. It's one thing to believe that the universe is god, it's something entirely different to believe the god universe wants you to sacrifice a bull with large enough testicles for its liking.

[dyresand]

Because, god is omni-present, and omni-being and omni-everywhere, so even in absence it’s there for there is no such thing as true absence.

So i heard that recently and i would like to hear from atheists here what you all think of this statement.

Thanks

What flavor of moron did you consume before posting this?

[Pat Mustard]

I just want to say you guys are very generous for taking the time to respond to a thread with that given title. I don't think the OP can quite understand how generous you're being. Dude, you come to an atheist forum and make statements like that. Trust me, you're not the first. These dudes are being generous. 

Stingymamacita.

Hey, what can I say, I like giving idiot woo peddlers a therapeutic kicking. It may help them, and it's fun for me.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The only difference?? I think you might be confusing theistic for deistic. It's one thing to believe that the universe is god, it's something entirely different to believe the god universe wants you to sacrifice a bull with large enough testicles for its liking.

Exactly right. Like some others, I have no real problem with 'Spinoza's God' (as a philosophical concept, at least) or equating 'God' with 'Nature'.

That being said, Nature doesn't expect me to pray to it, or donate a portion of my income, or set heretics alight.

Boru

[Cato]

Is now a good time to register a friendly reminder of the consequences of wrestling a pig in his own shit?

[Gemini]

Is now a good time to register a friendly reminder of the consequences of wrestling a pig in his own shit?

When people compare your argument to material excreted by swine, you might want to go back to the drawing board.

[Cecelia]

Well for starters, you need to prove that god is Omnipresent. Without that, your statement is quite meaningless. You've attributed something to this god in order to prove that he exists. You can't do that. You must first prove that this attribute exists. I don't believe the bible states God is omnipresent, but even if it did -- you'd still have to prove that the bible is a reliable source. And then you'd have to prove that it's a reliable source about that piece of information as well. Without that, anyone could attribute anything to anything so long as they had a book backing them up.

[Blueyedlion]

Redbeard The PinkOk...at this point, I'm gonna go ahead and reject your definition of god. It is vague, useless, and dishonest, and it does not comport with how experts or laymen use that word. You're basically a pantheist, and if everything is god, then effectively nothing is. The Universe is just the Universe. There is no need to call it god, and the only reason you're doing that is in an attempt to assign your personal god's qualities to the Universe. If you want me to believe the Universe thinks, can talk to me, has a plan for me, then I'll need to see some evidence. Until then, you're just asserting things.

Thanks, a pantheist would be more appropriate explanation of my beliefs. "everything is god, then effectively nothing is" what you've just said is, everything is energy, so nothing is energy. Here is a logic bomb for you of how you can know that plants, rocks, the sun, atoms, can think and feel -

You can see the workings of the mind in the logic of behavior. When you see a group of lions or elephants resting under the shade of trees, allowing the babies to sleep while the adults doze but remain vigilant. You make perfect sense of that circumstance as they the animals make perfect sense of what they're doing. So, when you make a logical observation of particles behaving in a particular way, or the motion of waves, the orbit of planet around the sun, these are behaviors that arent exclusively logical to us, but can only be logical because those experiencing it, are themselves doing it out of a logical intent. Otherwise, the human brain is making logic out of something that inst truly logical, which would then imply our thinking is false no matter what we think. So we have two options, either animal behavior, cell behavior, crystal behavior, atomic behavior is based on logic, or nothing is.

"the only reason you're doing that is in an attempt to assign your personal god's qualities to the Universe"

But, that's the whole point You can actually apply the make up of a rock, atomically to the make up of a person, or the sun. That's science. The only diference is you are under the impression that even though everythign throughout the universe is made of the exact same thing with the same amount in quantity, is that a brain is behind that extra mind part. However, it's aready found that plants can think and feel. So the brain is irreverent for consciousness to exist. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBGt5OeAQFk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0nVIUI5Fwk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWWlgiVEr1k