Nope, this is an experiment in atheism, not a debate on my concept of God. So basically although you have no concept of God, you argue against their concept because er, you cannot find agreement with it.
How about a "hullo, this is the number 42. Pretty much explains everything; have a look, will you?" Seriously though, surely we should be able to see His works on the earth and whatnot. No idea what that meant. I'm just a poor country evolutionary biologist.
That's quite the experiment. You don't define the very parameters required for testing. Could you be anymore vague?
Everyone 'knows' concepts of God picked up from the cultural evironmental, but this is different than 'having' or believing in a concept of God. No one is precluded from disagreeing with a concept simply because they believe in none themselves.
Ya, I'm testing if its possible for atheists to define their beliefs without debasing theists. You already flunked that course way way back, buster. :bugeye: You get an F
I've heard religion comes to some people like lightning, to others like a slow sweet song that gets into your veins and never leaves. Or maybe that was love.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 42 it is then.
Atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief. In the same way that darkness is not something, but an absence of something...light!
Yeah, so would I be right in saying I have a lack of belief in light? Considering that I'd have to know of it to have any sort of opinion on it?
A person blind from birth would certainly be justified in saying they dont believe in light...considering they have no experience of it. This does not prove that there is no light. But atheists are usually not trying to prove that there is no God...merely that there is no proof of God.
The absence of reasons is neccessity unfulfilled. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Its like an alternate universe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Surely you must understand that 'atheist' in itself doesn't even exist without your concept of god? You're a theist. You assert the existence of a [specific, defined] god. I am an atheist. By definition I am 'without' belief in that [specific, defined] god. Without the definition I simply cannot be 'a' to it. That's the way it is, there's no plausible argument you can give. Pay attention to your own words.. "their concept". Notice anything? -- Let it be said that from the outset you have made the most fatal of blunders. You ask if being an atheist is better when the very question is moot. How is a belief or lack thereof 'better'? Better than what? You assert a positive: "leprechauns exist". An aleprechaunist lacks a belief in that which you positively assert. Is it better? It's not a valid question.
I agree with this, but the reason was given at the outset, viz. discuss what advantages atheism confers that theism does not possess.
People who want to live in a world of belief certainly DO live in an alternate universe...from those who want to know. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
