Do some atheists really believe...

[shnarkle]

Just what does nothing look like?

Just how does one look at nothing?


There is a claim that all gods are imaginary, and it is nothing more than a baseless claim. It is basically a contradiction due to the fact that the product of one's imagination is nothing more than an idea or a concept. Ideas or concepts are not gods.

The fact that gods don't exist should be more than enough proof that they can't be imagined. How do we know this? Because what you are imagining is literally nothing more than an idea, and it isn't even an idea of God, but what you are claiming to be God. To claim that an idea is a god is to redefine the meaning of the word "idea".

Furthermore, not only is there no proof for God's existence, there quite simply can't be. This is especially true when it comes to the biblical God, who despite the protestations of the faithful and the skeptic alike; can't be imagined.

To claim that God can be imagined is to claim God exists, even if as nothing more than an idea. Again, ideas are not gods; they're ideas.

The authors have simply pointed out a fundamental, and quite self evident fact, which is that worshipping the product of one's imagination makes whoever is imagining it, an idolater, and idolaters don't worship or believe in God, but in these imagined ideas. It stands to reason that one doesn't have to be a so-called "believer" to be an idolater.

Even asking for proof of God's existence necessarily renders those making this request idolaters due to the fact that they have some criteria upon which to base their ideas. In other words, they have their own ideas of what passes for a god. By definition, this renders them just as much a theist as the theist, except for the fact that they're both idolaters. So while many an idolater may believe they're actually a theist, the atheist is just as much an idolater for the exact same reason.

No atheist who comprehends what it truly means to be an atheist would ever ask for proof for the existence of God. The only thing more incoherent and contradictory than a Christian who believes in the existence of God is someone claiming to be an atheist who asks for proof of what simply can't exist in the first place.

God is not a "what" or a "thing". God is not anything, and to ask for proof that nothing exists is pointless. By definition, nothing doesn't exist.

How often does one need to be reminded that nothing doesn't exist? How often do atheists seem compelled to point out that the only gods that do exist are imaginary, and why are they unable to see that even those gods don't exist?

More importantly, why are they unable to see the double standard they've set between their ideas, and those of other theistic denominations?

To point out that you don't believe in God is to spotlight that you don't believe in some idea. It doesn't prove you don't believe in God at all due to the fact that you have some idea which you associate with this term "God", and you don't believe in that idea. So what? Hindus have 330 million deities. Do you believe each and every one of those ideas don't exist as well? Of course not. We all know these ideas exist as well as the fact that these ideas are not gods.

The fact is that these ideas do exist, and many of them exist in the atheist's mind which only goes to show they don't believe in some ideas,i.e. those ideas that they believe are gods. They can't help conflate these ideas with gods which is exactly the same thing theists do. The theist believes in their idea as if it were a god while the atheist doesn't believe in this idea, yet still insists that this idea is actually an imaginary god. It isn't. It's an idea, a concept.

As crazy as it is for atheists, skeptics, and agnostics to ask for proof of God's existence, it is just as bewildering to hear their refrain that there is no proof for God's existence. To point out that there is no proof isn't just redundant, it's idiotic. One needs to point out that God CAN'T exist.

Again, by definition; whatever exists can't be God. The theist and the atheist alike must seek to recognize this logical fact. When they do, they will immediately see that these labels are also just as pointless.

The concept of God is not a god, imaginary or otherwise; it's a concept.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

This Non-Theist does not debate the existence of 'gods'. However, I do ask those who claim knowledge of 'gods' to produce verifiable evidence that their claims of knowledge are true and accurate. (see signature)

I am not willing to take anyone's word (ancient or modern, oral or written) that they KNOW about 'gods' or other proposed supernatural entities -- instead ask that verifiable evidence be set forth for all to consider.

Without verification, all is speculation.

[shnarkle]

.
[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

This Non-Theist does not debate the existence of 'gods'. However, I do ask those who claim knowledge of 'gods' to produce verifiable evidence that their claims of knowledge are true and accurate. (see signature)

Well, then I would only ask that you kindly provide evidence for your claims as well. please provide evidence of your imaginary gods. As I pointed out in this OP, your claim is contradictory. Claiming to be a non-theist is also pointless when you're claiming that imaginary gods exist.

I am not willing to take anyone's word (ancient or modern, oral or written) that they KNOW about 'gods'

Ditto here which is why I suspect you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Whenever you're ready to provide verifiable evidence for your claims that the only gods that exist are imaginary, let us all know. Until then, I will stick to the fact that imaginary gods simply can't exist.

[Zzyzx]

.

This Non-Theist does not debate the existence of 'gods'. However, I do ask those who claim knowledge of 'gods' to produce verifiable evidence that their claims of knowledge are true and accurate. (see signature)

Well, then I would only ask that you kindly provide evidence for your claims as well.

WHAT claims? Quote verbatim with URL the claims to which you refer.

please provide evidence of your imaginary gods.

I do NOT pretend to know about ‘gods’ and do not make any claims regarding ‘gods’. However, I ask those who DO claim knowledge to provide verifiable evidence that they speak truth.

As I pointed out in this OP, your claim is contradictory. Claiming to be a non-theist is also pointless when you're claiming that imaginary gods exist.

I make no claim regarding the existence of ‘gods’ (real or imaginary).

I am not willing to take anyone's word (ancient or modern, oral or written) that they KNOW about 'gods'

Ditto here

Where can or did you or anyone learn about ‘gods’ without taking someone’s word? Do you claim direct communication with or from ‘gods’? Do you base your ‘knowledge’ on what others have said or written about ‘gods’ (taking their word)?

which is why I suspect you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Your opinion is of no interest to me and is not of any significance in debate.

Readers will decide for themselves who does or does not know what they are talking about.

Whenever you're ready to provide verifiable evidence for your claims that the only gods that exist are imaginary, let us all know.

Quote verbatim with URL a statement from me “that the only gods that exist are imaginary�.

When you discover that no such statements exist, kindly drop the straw-man attempts at ‘argument’. Such tactics may fool a few people, but I trust that most who view these threads are not gullible or naive enough to fall for amateur tricks and tactics.

Until then, I will stick to the fact that imaginary gods simply can't exist.

Imaginary ‘gods’ can ‘exist’ in the imagination of people – thousands of proposed ‘gods’. Are any of them real? Let’s look at any verifiable evidence that does not require taking someone’s word.

[shnarkle]

.

This Non-Theist does not debate the existence of 'gods'. However, I do ask those who claim knowledge of 'gods' to produce verifiable evidence that their claims of knowledge are true and accurate. (see signature)

Well, then I would only ask that you kindly provide evidence for your claims as well.

WHAT claims? Quote verbatim with URL the claims to which you refer.

"My position is unchanged as – gods have not been shown, with verifiable evidence, to be anything other than imaginary." -Zzyzx

please provide evidence of your imaginary gods.

I do NOT pretend to know about ‘gods’ and do not make any claims regarding ‘gods’.

Sure you do. You've repeatedly made claims pointing out that there is no verifiable evidence of gods. How would you know? Is there some standard for distinguishing one god from another? Is there some way to verify the true gods from the false? So far all you've been able to do is pretend that you know something about gods, and I've simply pointed out that your ideas are nothing more than ideas. Ideas which you believe are 'gods' of one's imagination. Yet the fact remains, one can call their ideas a 'god', and this will never result in them becoming or being gods, even of their own imagination. Your overactive imagination can imagine all sorts of things, and none of them are anything but ideas, images, concepts in your noggin. You can imagine a shiny new sports car in your garage, a few million dollars in your bank account, a gold swimming pool in your backyard, etc., but the fact remains that what you're imagining are only images, ideas, etc. The problem with your ideas of "god" is that unless you have some verifiable experience, or knowledge of "god", you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

However, I ask those who DO claim knowledge to provide verifiable evidence that they speak truth.

Well, why don't you start with yourself. You're the one who is claiming knowledge of "gods".

As I pointed out in this OP, your claim is contradictory. Claiming to be a non-theist is also pointless when you're claiming that imaginary gods exist.

I make no claim regarding the existence of ‘gods’ (real or imaginary).

You explicitly claim the only gods that do exist are imaginary.

I am not willing to take anyone's word (ancient or modern, oral or written) that they KNOW about 'gods'

You seem to have no problem taking your own written word that all the "gods" are imaginary.

Where can or did you or anyone learn about ‘gods’ without taking someone’s word?

You can take my word for it, I didn't.

Do you claim direct communication with or from ‘gods’? Do you base your ‘knowledge’ on what others have said or written about ‘gods’ (taking their word)?

Nope, that includes you as well.

which is why I suspect you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Your opinion is of no interest to me and is not of any significance in debate.

Which is why you keep responding with these denials? "Me thinks the lady doth protest too much"

Readers will decide for themselves who does or does not know what they are talking about.

Thanks for contributing such important and relevant information to this debate. (':D')

When you discover that no such statements exist, kindly drop the straw-man attempts at ‘argument’. Such tactics may fool a few people, but I trust that most who view these threads are not gullible or naive enough to fall for amateur tricks and tactics.

So strawman arguments are determined before the evidence is provided? Is that how it works with your idea of debate? Here it is again, for you and everyone else who may have missed it:

"My position is unchanged as – gods have not been shown, with verifiable evidence, to be anything other than imaginary."

This is quite clearly pointing out that gods can't exist as anything other than the imaginary variety. My OP has quite simply refuted this claim by pointing out that the product of your imagination is nothing other than an idea or concept with no referent anywhere in reality. So how do you know what you're imagining is a 'god' when you have nothing to compare it to other than what you come up with in your own imagination or what others come up with in theirs? The fact remains that none of these ideas are gods; they're ideas. Even if the 'gods' did exist, these ideas would still be ideas. Ideas are not gods. Images are not gods; they're images.

Until then, I will stick to the fact that imaginary gods simply can't exist.

Imaginary ‘gods’ can ‘exist’ in the imagination of people – thousands of proposed ‘gods’.

And what exists in people's imagination are nothing but images, ideas, concepts. You're simply redefining the meaning of words. Calling an idea, or image a "god" doesn't make it a god. It makes it an idea.

Are any of them real?

They're real ideas, and that's the full extent of it.

Let’s look at any verifiable evidence that does not require taking someone’s word.

The verifiable evidence points to the fact that there are chemical reactions taking place in the brain which produce these images, ideas and concepts, and the fact remains that the concept or idea of "god" is nothing more than the product of these chemical reactions producing these ideas. They're still just ideas, and they exist only as ideas.




"Imaginary ‘gods’ can ‘exist’ in the imagination of people" -Zzyzx ('')

[Elijah John]

Ditto here which is why I suspect you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from making personal comments against a fellow debater.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

There is a claim that all gods are imaginary, and it is nothing more than a baseless claim. It is basically a contradiction due to the fact that the product of one's imagination is nothing more than an idea or a concept. Ideas or concepts are not gods.

If this is true, then it should be trivial to show that God or gods are indistinguishable from the imagination.

And yet, I can come up with no test, approach or concept that distinguishes God from the imaginary.
Now you try it.

[Zzyzx]

.

You explicitly claim the only gods that do exist are imaginary.

FALSE statement.

If you think otherwise, quote me verbatim with URL stating "the only gods that do exist are imaginary"

Since I say no such thing, your entire 'argument' is specious

At the bottom of each of my posts, in signature, I clearly state: "ANY of the thousands of ‘gods’ proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist – awaiting verifiable evidence to show which, if any, are more than products of human imagination."

What part of "MAY exist" is beyond comprehension for a person of average intelligence, education, and language skills?

[Danmark]

The fact that gods don't exist should be more than enough proof that they can't be imagined.

Ridiculous! The fact that gods don't exist is proof they don't exist.
The fact the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist is hardly proof he can't be imagined. We can imagine all sorts of nonsense that does not exist.
Where do you come up with such twaddle?

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by shnarkle]

To be honest about God, Heaven and God-theory, here's one list that "indicates" ("proves" rather than not) the existence of God along with OR gate testing, believe it or not:
The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality

The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality - The Black Swans Outside Dumb People's Livingroom, Their Problem of Induction

We start with another list:

• * reincarnation "out of thin air or using nearby blood and other"
  * white giant "golems" "also out of thin air, out to crush evil or punish evil or for evil", good people victims being collateral damage, see giants of "Bhima" in India, seeming skulls of giants from those whereabouts
  * speedy (or very speedy) regeneration "possibly out of thin air or using available blood or other"
  * "magic" ejection by fantastic nature of objects that imply great dangers or pains, such as bullets, criminal implants, small or larger, impaling objects, etc. - only to people and animals of sufficient worth or character
  * the "ice" in girls' or women's vagina "out of thin air" or the poles that shoot out of the penis of men going to the ground and into the air "also out of thin air"
  * shapeshifting (of "shapeshifter") or changelinging (of "changeling") to other forms, whether fossils or strange creatures, small or large or very large like giant creatures "in a sense, out of thin air or transforming substances to body of something entirely different"
  * telepathy "magically transferring thoughts from one person to another"
  * existence as soul without body or anything flesh and blood, popularly speaking being Near-Death Experience (NDE) or Out-of-body Experience (OBE) "with possibility to move around, think, have cognition, to perceive (colours glaring in a beautiful way), also maintaining memory also from being in the state of soul, whether body is destroyed or not"
  * phantom feelings "the ability to feel other people's touch or objects with one's soul where one's missing limb is"
  * deeply immoral people's "black spots" (of despicable actions), some deeply immoral people are so utterly bad that they are treated as special waste in terms of "garbage handling" - this is a secret from the trade of the coroner!
  * the special secret from the trade notion of the insurance sector as business, of "tainted buildings" by "creepy animal/spectre/phantom" (large or small) making the building unusable
  * possible accounts of "eggs" which are generated from despicable acts as well, whether "virtual guards" for something or markers for something, I don't really know. Large and small? Various looks? Opened "egg shells" like some flower?
  * abominations of dead people that make people fearful or morality struck in some sense, black bodies where they have died that's virtually impossible to remove
  * freak nature itself by "severe threats against people of worth and dignity, becoming a monster in the process, extreme phenomena may take place in the World that's outside "normal science" or (what I like to call) "laboratory science", that is, natue is upset and "urgent" with deeply adverse quantum physics in the process for those who do this (include "mystical" rage against the doers of these horrors), disturbing the harmony between nature of people (of dignity, worth, goodness, if not all) See also The Bad People List (you may want to add "Olsnes-Lea" in order to locate it)
  * there are "crazy" phenomena more for the deeply immoral people: some explode, some turn to dust, some disappear in thin air(?), some suddenly die as black "statues", some may manage to live, but turn into "warts"-/"buds"-balls, large or smaller, etc.?
  * bad people may take on colours of evil, their skin (here or there on the body) becomes suddenly or other coloured, be they purple, pink, gray, black, orange, red, brown, green. The most evil people turn entirely black, top to toe, before something else
  * the notion from all of banking industry of black and white money, separated by OR gate testing practice (Question of Truth application)

List is complete?

Source, Facebook notes: https://www.facebook.com/notes/lukas-f- ... 606236984/

______________


These are real, academic worries documented in the police catalogues in the World, best known from New York City and London. "Winston Churchill: the dark and lamentable catalogues of human crime!" (Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat!)

BTW, belief in "Atheism" has a tendency to end up in "voodoo" thoughts or worse, practice because the World is more complex than the school books on physics.

Note: the exact question for God is "does God exist?" or "is existence of God more true than Atheism?" and so on for the OR gate testing / Question of Truth.