Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

so your a Muslim and a Christian and a Scientologist, got it, you do not lack belief in any religion\God(s)

Tomorrow is Sunday, don't forget to worship the Sun God

the Stonner God says it's party time tonight

 

I usually do not defend atheists and their hatred of religion, but I will do so today. The perverse have intentionally corrupted what Allah not instructs us to do, but offers suggestions to construct a Heaven (Jannah) while we are still alive, for there is no Heaven or Hell (Jahannam) after we physically die, and there is no Resurrection after physical death.

The picture that I have posted is the exact representation of what the religions of this world.

 

So now you are trying to prove a negative after claiming 10,000 times it cant be done? WTF?

Say its not so!

 

Oh smileys and bold text, clearly arguments have gone out the window! However you made a false statement, I have shown that to be the case, instead of accepting this you appear to wish to pretend you have not. It is clearly important when debating you not to allow you to take the argument of track. Stick to the points, you made something up, I proved it.

 

youve posted not so much as one shred of evidence, you have proven nothing what so ever except that your posts prove a runaway overactive imagination.

 

On the contrary, I have provided the thread which you make the false claim about.

 

No lies in that thread from me. sorry

 

nope, if your a theist, you have to believe like all theists per your logic

 

Deny all you wish, the evidence is there.

 

nope you only need to accept that deities exists, with that acceptance there is an associated religion, likewise for atheists, with their denial there is an associated religion as I explain in the religion and morality thread.

 

sorry, but theist do not believe in all the same God's Atheists do not believe in except one, their own, if they believed in one less God.. they too would be Atheists

 

Thats neither the definition of a theist nor atheist.

 

You failed in that explanation and were massively proven irrefutably wrong.

There is no religion associated with atheism and that is fact which you know well but are too immature to admit.

 

Yes it is in fact a valid definition of atheism

 

that is exactly the definitions, Theists believe in God(s), Atheists don't, it really is just that simple

 

at least you admit atheists have not so much as one solitary moral. thanks for making my point!

 

some theists believe in more than one God, so the definition of an atheist is not one less God than a theist FFS.

 

I have a simple question why doesn't a deity or the one deity just show himself, herself or itself openly and talk to the created it would be simple for them to do and would toss out any lack of evidence as an argument there would be proof of a deity and if done to everyone and the being explained its wishes and wants it would make the need for ancient religious books useless? If these being won't the created including theists should be skeptical. If they can't then the same argument why not be skeptical. If they did in the old days but don't now then again there is a right to be skeptical and thinking said beings are also rather dumb for not updating things using modern means.

 

It does not do so because it has now decided the free will it gave us is important even though it was not back then after it gave it to us after taking it away with an apple and a snake (cruel trick that one). Besides everything must be affirmed with the faith you use to counter reality just like it says in his book...no not that one, the other one...oh for Cripes sake the one with the cross on it.

 

So? The point of the criticism which atheists bring forth won't go away just because you manage to label atheism a religion. You'll just make the arguments slightly longer because you'd have to add little disclaimers.

You choose your definition depending on what you're trying to say. If you want to make an argument pertaining to fruit, you will want to use the definition of orange that refers to a fruit, and if you want to make an argument pertaining to colour, you will most likely want to use the definition of orange that refers to a colour. Similarly, an atheist would be within their right to use the definition I have proposed to construct their arguments (if that is what the argument is about).

 

lack of belief? That point?
If you lack a belief you also lack any conclusion, no thought required to lack belief!
A rock lacks belief...therefore there is no difference between an atheist and a rock.
If you claim to lack belief, then its a total contradiction to simultaneously claim you are anything what so ever, because you had no thought, came to no conclusion the only way you can claim to lack belief. The lack of belief argument atheists make is prima facia BS and a product of denial, nothing more. Again XSmith went through the logic and that is not the same one he agreed with you on.

No they would not, as I explained again, above, and additionally to be an atheist one must deny any deity exists or they are not an atheist, hence even if you could defy all reason and logic and lack belief and possess a conclusion from nothing, you would still need to deny that any deity exists to be an atheist.

 

if you are blind and its raining outside do you need to see clouds to know they are there? If you bump into a wall do you need to see a solid object to know that a solid object is there?

 

Does your atheism towards Zeus inspire you to cheat and murder?

 

Clouds and walls are real things. Gods are not.

 

fine prove it to a blind person that clouds are real, the sun, the moon

a blind person can only perceive what those items produce, not the items themselves.