Nearly always happens in these discussions. This thread became an example. Deja vue all over again.
I don’t think so. Antitheism is that God is undesirable.
All our gods are dead. Ancient Klingon warriors slew them a millennia ago. They were … more trouble than they were worth ~ Lt. Worf
Repeating nonsense does not make nonsense true.
@Jasper30 – Like “exists” previously, also explain what you mean by “prove” in this context.
One way of stating the “problem of evil” (both moral, that caused by humans and natural that caused by plaques, earthquakes and other forms of natural disasters). I agree this is a major cause of disbelief (the holocaust caused many of the Jewish faith to lose their belief in God). However the definition of God that you describe (although one of the forms of classical theism, doctrinaire even if not very biblical) is not the only conception of the divine and perhaps not the one best suited to our more modern view of the workings of nature and the universe. You know I am a panentheist and a process theology philosophy type at that.
Of the traditional theist conception I always liked Woody Allens quip “that the best that could be said of that God is he is an underacheiver”. I also appreciate Charles Hartshorne’s small book titled Omnipotence and other Theological mistakes.
1 Like
If the good god cannot put an end to the evil god, then he is not omnipotent.
1 Like
Put it like this, if 180 Hopes God is real, then you Hope God isn’t real. Atheism attacks the CLAIM of Theism, not the ontological reality, if any, of God.
1 Like
I’m not clever I simply answer questions, with a fun French arrogance because you English people you simply don’t Think. You don’t do Philosophy, you don’t answer questions, what you do is scriptures studies, your infinite referential arguings are just a non-supernatural unconscious mimicking of Biblical scriptures studies. And you are clever in your twenties (Newton,Einstein : 24), after 30 brain is gone, you feel it, and I’m 66,6 
1 Like
If anyone’s wondering why this discussion now has links to and quotes from posts that don’t exist, it’s because all the posts of a particular user have been removed.
NOTE: This is just an announcement, not an invitation to discuss the action I took (that should go in Feedback)
I’m an atheist. For me it is neither simply holding the proposition “God exists” to be false, nor a passive lack of belief. Rather, it is an active disbelief in the epistemological methods of believers: faith, scriptural authority, revelation, tradition. As an atheist I hold that these methods have zero value in accessing any truth, such that any resemblance between various beliefs arrived at by these methods and some actually existant “higher being” would be completely accidental. I therefore afford no weight to any of these beliefs.
3 Likes
Logically atheism is rejection of belief in God, or not deciding on the issue either way.
However in practise, atheism is mostly a consequence of people not understanding how subjectivity functions. Which is shown by atheists requesting proof for the existence of God, which request is a category error, confusing the objective category with the subjective category. It is same as requesting proof that a painting is beautiful.
The subjective part of reality, is the part of it that chooses. You also cannot actually prove human emotions exist, because they are on the side of doing the choosing, belonging to a decision-maker. You can just express the opinion that nobody ever had any real emotion ever, which opinion is just as valid as saying people do have emotions.
To say a painting is beautiful, does not prove the existence of a love for the way the painting looks, same as saying I believe in God, does not prove God exists. Subjective statements are not objective statements.
A “proper” atheist accepts creationism, accepts that all in the universe is possible, that it can be or not be, by decision. And then this person simply does not accept that there is any deity on the side of choosing things. But I have never seen any proper atheist, 100 percent of atheists simply do not comprehend how subjectivity functions.
Sure, the “common sense” definition of belief in divinity (supernatural beings, generally outside of the laws of mortal man, whether they be truly outside of time and the physical world, or merely not subject to the laws of traditional “mortality”, whether there is one or several) is fairly and commonly understood.
Yet other possibilities remain still. Another school of thought is basically the idea that the “mortal world” or “reality” as any mortal man has ever seen, understood and ever will is simply not all there is to existence. That there are other worlds, per se, and not physically like how the Moon or another planet is another world but an actual realm of existence that is set apart from our own that, no manner how far man’s technology and science progresses, even if we become space-faring people who travel to the ends of the Universe, man will never be able to access. Not from our traditional physical means. The best common comparison would be something like a wormhole or a black hole or perhaps even “multiverse theory.”
Of course, this generally enters into the territory of fiction and whatnot. Rightfully so, perhaps. For if you believe in something no one seems to be able to prove, why not just believe in anything you’re told or what happens to come to mind at that point?
I kind of like to think of theism or religion as a personal declaration that proudly proclaims: “No, man does NOT know all there is to know, and quite possibly, never will.” Phrased like that, it doesn’t seem to irrational, now does it? 
Welcome to the forum, OP. I really like your insight and demeanor thus far. Keep it up, if you would.
So… god exists because you choose that he exist?
Well, that’s at least novel.
1 Like
But hang on - theists claim to know that god exists…
Those who take pride in being able to say “I don’t know” are the agnostics.
That’s generally correct. Mine is a bit of a non-mainstream school of thought, mind you. Theists generally believe (specifically, have faith or hold a personal conviction) in a divine nature or supreme being, yes. That somewhere—perhaps at least at some point (though one ought be careful before we enter the territory of “deism”)—a being greater than common man exists. Absolutely.
You’re most likely correct. Though I was originally educated it’s something along the lines of “I could go either way, but I need to see proof” thus removing the “faith” dynamic that is the crucial and defining distinction between the two. Again, just my upbringing. I’m sure other people were taught differently. That’s the thing with arts, disciplines, or beliefs that aren’t inherently “logical”, per se. It becomes a culture war where ideas defeat and dethrone other ideas not by validity or logic or even adherence to shared foundational truths, but by sheer number.
Indeed, they have an approach that glories in believing despite or against the evidence; the Disney “just believe”. Faith is t its zenith when the odds against it are highest…
Not in philosophy, if we are doing it right. Kinda the point.
False. It’s precisely because he has full access to the limited subjectivity of believers that an “atheist” (aka a smart thinker) don’t even bother to ask proof of God’s existence, don’t even call himself an “atheist” because he don’t have to define himself relatively to these supernatural superstitious inanities fueling the mind of believers.
This evidence radically disqualify all these pseudo-sophisticated long reasoning about the “God” supernatural superstition.
1 Like
It is a chosen opinion to for instance say someone is a loving person, and the opinion applies to that person as them being a decision-maker.
That’s how subjectivity works, but no atheist comprehends any of it.
no. It doesn’t work this way because it’s not a “chosen opinion”, it is made at the unconscious level. Beleivers can talk about beleiving in “God”, even rarely say they chose to believe, but this superstition has been installed, not chosen, by tradition, unconscious need for submission to great things, herd belonging needs etc.: all these supernatural subjective causalities are transparent to any smart enough dude.
But atheists simply do not comprehend the logic of choosing either.
I can go left or right, I choose left, I go left.
Which shows that the logical function of choosing is to make one of alternative possible futures the present. In the same moment that left is chosen, the possibility of choosing right is negated. Which is what makes decisions spontaneous.
Where atheists instead, incorrectly, conceive of choosing as a selection procedure, as like how a chesscomputer may calculate a move.
Which is why you reference all these things about unconsciouse, tradition, installed, etc. That only shows you conceive of choosing as it being a selection procedure, where values are used to evaluate options with.
The logic of subjectivity can only function with choosing defined in terms of spontaneity. Because all the elements in a selection procedure are objective, you can state as fact what they are. You can’t make the concept of subjectivity function with only objective elements.
While if choosing is defined in terms of spontaneity, then the decision-maker can only be identified with a chosen opinion. Then you have the subjective element of the decision-maker, which makes the concept of subjectivity function.
I just voided your “chosen” model of subjectivity but you continue on exactly the same argument. I will not climb in this typical TPS hamster wheel for English “philosophers”.