To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

It's quite simple.
While one may believe in god(s) they may also subscribe to the idea that there is nothing we can know about god(s).

Oh right.
So I'm the fool because theists want everyone to subscribe to the beliefs they hold that they know can't be given any objective evidence.

Yeah, maybe you should learn to distinguish between an attack on a belief (and its concomitant consequences) and an attack on the person holding that belief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Right...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If only they stopped there.

But, no, they usually move on to tell people how to give their money to other people and to hate and kill other people.

 

the love
the love we ordinary human experience is of the heart level. therefore pseudo scientist call it disease foolishly.

this absence of the belief is also a belief.
all know about human body being made of energy and matter, but why we witness each other does 'science' give its answer. is thier any proof of witnessing in physics ?
i dont know whether it is their or not but the day it is found our search for proof will stop.

 

Citation needed.

And the absence of food is edible?
The absence of heat means you're warm?
The ABSENCE of belief is not a belief.

This is incoherent drivel.
Please stop posting.

 

JamesR was responding to the theistic first-cause argument, which typically is presented as a logical argument.

Love is a subjective emotion, or perhaps a propensity to behave in certain ways in certain situations. In other words, love can be understood as a psychological state of the lover. People rarely want to claim in addition that some mysterious being called "love itself" exists somewhere that corresponds to the lover's personal state and to which the lover's state refers.

It does?

I don't think that anyone would deny the existence of subjective religious experiences or that religious people have propensities to behave in religious ways.

The difficulty here is that most theists don't want to simply say that the word 'God' names some aspect of their own subjective psychological state. Theists make the claim that an ultimate and transcendent being called "God" actually exists, to which the psychological state and the word 'God' refer.

It's that additional existence claim that requires argument, at least if the theist wants to convince other people that what he/she says is true.

 

मूल तत्व, the ultimate substrate, that is exactly what I believe in, 'physical energy'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i am not an atheist nor an theist. life is not always based on logical example me.
evidence is for the one who has 'seprated' from the eternal, then only the person can know another.
experiments are done to find god, this seperation is all the cause of these experiments.
important things here is you used the words 'we atheists' you think that all are like you, you still have a belief.
see we all are madethesame.

 

Wrong.
You either believe or you don't.
There is no "halfway" position.

Inane drivel.

By whom?

For this to be true then "god" would have to exist - this claim therefore shows your earlier claim (to be not a theist) false.

Did I?
Please show where I used those words.

Nope.

In what?

 

If that was the case, then so-called 'atheists' would stop being atheists as soon as they acquired any beliefs.

I'm more inclined to define 'atheism' as the belief that 'God' doesn't exist. That's how most professional philosophers and scholars of religious studies use the term and it better describes those who identify themselves as 'atheists'.

Atheists often have a whole host of beliefs in addition to that basic defining belief. They often (but not universally) insist that there's no good evidence for the existence of God, or that 'religion' (which many atheists equate with belief in God) is a dark and atavistic force in human history. Some atheists seem to believe that atheists are more intelligent than 'religionists'. My own view is that some of these atheist beliefs are defensible and well-founded, while others aren't.

That's an atheist belief that I'd classify as foolishness.

Suppose that somebody makes the claim that 'atoms don't exist'. Presumably that assertion still needs quite a bit of evidence and argument before it becomes plausible. People have no obligation to believe every statement that has a logical negation operator tucked into it somewhere.

 

body is made of matter. universe is not made of matter.
the collective what i call eternal is 0 the god.
now we come to proof thing. the universe has +energy/matter and -energy/matter. proof prove existence.
but what existence, when their is already its negation energy present somewhere. what is proved.
you still believe.

 

your targets are religious ducks

 

Uh yes.
If atheists acquire a belief in god then they become - automatically - theists.

Doesn't make you right.

Really? Just like this one?
Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy: The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.

Um, except that, in this case the ONLY pertinent belief (or lack of) is whether or not one believes in god.
Any other belief is irrelevant to the the question.

Presumably your final sentence refers to the first.
That particular belief is neither A) held by all atheists nor, B) mutandis mutandis, confined to atheists only.
Thus it's not, strictly speaking, an (exclusively) atheist belief, it's more of a "human" one.

 

Nothing to do with the topic.

So what?
And would this be the god you claimed you don't believe in?

Doesn't prove that it's "god" though.

What?

In what?

 

to prove the non existence.

 

Not only incorrect linguistically it's also incorrect as shown by your own statements.

Not MY problem.

Er, evidently you don't know what you're talking about.

This doesn't answer my question.
You claimed that I still believe.
I certainly don't believe that we can prove the non-existence of god(s).

 

dear friend what you want to prove when nothing exist.
we are made up of - and + energy.
the science does not deal phenomena, it concludes the result.

 

What?

There's no such thing as "- energy".

Wrong.

And none of that addresses my previous points.