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

[robvalue]

Yeah, I mean... we've all noticed the universe. We've all thought about it. We've all studied it, in our own way. I'm sure we all have a reasonable grasp of how it appears to operate.

We're not going to suddenly notice some mystical property it has because someone says "it is God". It makes no difference what you call it.

[Pat Mustard]

"You must first prove that this attribute exists" What is always present, the universe. tick.

The existence of the universe proves god in the same fashion it proves invisible pink unicorns. It doesn't prove either.

If you believe god is the universe you need to provide compelling, independent, verifialbe and falsifiable evidece supoorting your case. Pointing at the universe and shouting "there's god!" is as useful as me pointing at a bowl of icecream as evidence for Jack Frost.

I really shouldn't have used that analogy, I'm now jonesing so bad for icecream.

[Angrboda]

Whateverist the White

If that is supposed to be an objective fact, you've just contradicted yourself.

It's not supposed to be an objective fact, i never once said or implied it was, that was you assuming. There is no such thing as an objective fact, objectivity doesn't exist. All facts are based on purely subjective experiences. When i say, there is no right or wrong, you are then interpreting that is some universal truth. A truth has to be a positive claim. I'm simply showing what doesn't exist, revealing what's left. The concept that everything universally is subjective is still not an objective truth.

Because you still need to realize that every individual experience in trapped within the bounds of that experience, no one thing can talk for anyone else then them. For two people have to be experiencing the exact same thing that is the same experience of a fact, in order for it to be actually objective. You need an to have an exact copy of you with all your memories interpreting as you would, in the exact same way you already are, standing in place where you already are having the exact same experience - that is then an objective experience. The facts of both experience are now objective.

Since that's not happening anytime this week, the only truth is yours and yours alone. A collective subjective experience is just an agreement that many subjective experiences are very similar to each other.

That's not what objective means. An objective fact is something that is true independent of individual attitudes. Nothing about it being a conjunction of experiences. You seem to like taking old words and giving them new, personal meaning. Your truths truly are subjective in that they're only true for you.

[Spooky]

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

Using the commutative property I could claim you also believe in nothing. 

[brewer]

Using the commutative property I could claim you also believe in nothing. 

Hey Spooky. Good seeing ya!

[Blueyedlion]

MaelstromAs wise and mature as Blueyedlion wishes he was, he is still arguing his personal reality as valid over the reality in which most of us live without delusion.

How so? Everyone has their own 'personal reality' the only difference is most people are trying to figure themselves out in comparison to others, that road goes absolutely nowhere. Reality is shaped by the collective experiences of conscious choices, but no one can perceive the reason behind anyone elses choices made outside of their own. So when you judge and compare and say, this behavior is wrong regardless what i think. That behavior you are judging, is built upon so many influences, so many interactions and factors, that for you to make some sort of vague understanding of the very small amount of information available to you, will only be one side of a reality you cant imagine to piece together because you weren't the one living that experience yourself to know.

There are layers upon layers i can go much further, explaining why this relates to there being a god. But before going into that, you can already see how consciousness is the most important factor in understanding reality and oneself. If consciousness wasn't in anyway relevant then it would be easy for you to dismiss this. What does the significance of consciousness then tell you about the nature of reality? The main reason atheists don't think in this way, is because they think consciousness is a symptom of the brain, so judging just means using your brain as a tool to figure out what ever you're exposed to without restraint, and if someone is blind to what you're exposed to, or behaves in a way you wouldn't, you're then thinking 'well we both have capable brains so everyone should behave in some uniform way if we gather enough evidence - everything should exist the same way for everyone uniformly because our brains are just observing what's already there." Science already says this is wrong and yet continues to apply itself as if it agreed, all because if the scientific community were to openly admit that consciousness manifests reality, then god comes into play, or at least a universal mind.

And for a few main reasons i can get into some other time, that openly accepting there is likely cause of their being a god, would simply cripple their ego. Simple as that.

[Silver]

Oh, my fucking goddess, you are a fucking moron.

You are doing nothing but making your irrationality appear rational.

I mean, seriously, attempting to make an argument for your delusion in the form of a disguise as though I would not see it for what it is?

Grow the fuck up.

[Blueyedlion]

Oh, my fucking goddess, you are a fucking moron.

You are doing nothing but making your irrationality appear rational.  

I mean, seriously, attempting to make an argument for your delusion in the form of a disguise as though I would not see it for what it is?

Grow the fuck up.

So, without explaining in any way, shape or form why what i've said is wrong, you're just gonna go ahead and say im wrong...

Sir, i tip my hat off to your genius. Well played

[Silver]

I'm not a genius in any way, but you did bring it up.

[Blueyedlion]

That's very misunderstood in your explanation. In fact, every single person will in most cases disagree with everyone and anyone else on most things - you see one shade of grey, someone else sees a slightly different shade. You can never see the variation anybody else sees because everyone has a different subjective perspective. Otherwise according to you everyone's wrong against everyone else? No body can speak for another persons experience. What is much more logical, is what is right and wrong is entirely up to you and no one else. The function of society is based on a misplaced presumption that if we allow each other to create an authority over another, this then gives us some sort of power to know whats what collectively, that somehow the amalgamation of many perspectives can have the slightest insight on yours, even though they never experienced yours. All this does is, this gives your own power of your own experience over to another. By living under the rule of anyone else, judging any single one of your actions, is to give up your ability to judge for yourself. You're essentially giving up your power of who you are to another.

Figure that one out

Mankind simply suffers with the knowledge that objectivity marginalizes subjectivity...as humans we seek and desire external affirmation, as a consequent we suffer with the understanding (and perhaps the avidity) that -  justly or unjustly - in many instances, might makes for right...or rather the illusory intimation thereof.

So what does objectivity have to do with might makes right? Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand how they imply eachother