Because those “atheists” have just another God. In other words: those atheists who say that God does not exist and is impossible are antitheists because their “arguments” are the same as those of the antitheists. Merely those atheist who say that there is no evidence for the existence of God are real atheists (so-called “agnostic atheists”). But those who allegedly “know” that God does not exist are antitheists, thus another theists, because they merely have another God(s). We may not forget that metaphysically God is a personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe. Who is the personalised moral instance and the creator of the universe for the atheists? And does he exist? YES, he does! As a ghost of all ghostly ancestors. Should I name some of them? I think I don’t have to because you probably know them anyway.
One can say that it is impossible to see, to recognise, to identify God, but one can not say that the existence of God is impossible. Those who say so are antitheists in the sense that they fight the theists with the (wanted or not wanted) result of another theists, namely: syntheists. For example: antimonotheists fight monotheists and get the polytheists as syntheists. There are many examples in history, especially in the Indian history. It is impossible to eliminate God out of the human brains. It is also impossible to eliminate the nothingness out of the human brains. It is a huge difference wether one says “God does not exist” or “I do not know that God does not exist”. A real atheist does not say the former but the latter; an unreal atheist, thus an antitheist always says the former and never the latter, although the former is untrue because it is impossible to know wether God exists.
The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called “Indios” or “Indians” didn’t even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.
There is evidence of unicorns. Because the unicorn is based upon, grounded on, the idea of a horse with a horn. Everything you can possibly think of, and imagine, must exist. Non existence is what you cannot imagine. But the thing about god and atheists, is that atheists are more about “will not imagine” rather than cannot imagine. Atheists refuse to imagine god, to define god as possible.
This is why you atheists strictly define god, from the premise, as “impossible”. For atheism, god is first impossible. And atheists refuse to be “open minded” about the possibility of god.
Because once an atheist admits that god is possible, then he is no longer an atheist. How is god possible? What is the first possibility of god?
Wether something is or not does not only depend on thinkling and Imaging, because (for example) zero, the nothingnesss, or the infinity can be thougt and imagined, but according to James’ “RM:AO” they do not exist because they have no affect.
Again my examples:
The African bushman knew nothing about steam maschines and guns of the White man (the Caucasian) before both met for the first time. Then the White man showed him some of them, and the bushman thought they were Gods. The same event in America, and here the so-called “Indios” or “Indians” didn’t even know that horses existed, and they thought that one horseman and one horse together were one God.
I don’t know wether the bushman and the “Indio” (“Indian”) could imagine the things and White humans before they saw them for the first time. But nevertheless: Those things and the White man existed. Do you know what I mean?
You’re dodging the point, so I’m going to presume that I’m right about this topic and how atheists presume god is impossible from the onset/premise.
However I claim that everything exists, no matter how fantastical it may seem. Fantasy is grounded in reality. Because you cannot imagine something that does not exist. Technically, the only thing that cannot exist, is nothing. Nothing, non existence, by definition, is outside all human imagination. I disagree that humans can think of, or imagine, nothing.
To be cognizant and/or conscious is to conceive (conception) of existence.
Many will correctly attribute this conception of existence as a divine will, or that of a divine creator. Because consciousness is itself proof and evidence of creation, existence, possibilites, etc.
That reminds me … anyone who proposes any argument is, in reality, a theist. Every argument is a theory being proposed. Anyone professing any theory is a theist. If the theory is based on logic, they are in fact, a theologian adhering to the “God”, Logic, the God of Moses and the Hebrews … haha.
You’re dodging the point that atheists pitifully, miserably attempt to define god as impossible, but fail of course. Because what is impossible to one person, can be possible to another.
And yes, a person cannot think of nothing. Because to be cognizant, is to always think of something. Nothing does not exist. Everything exists.
This is identical to antireligion threads. Every religious person must believe the same things the same way. In this thread its all atheists must believe the same things the same way. Both arguments are close minded and filled with ignorance.
I say this as an atheist. A god may exist for you but, not for me.
Ah, yes. Their attempts are just too pitiful, too miserable.
When I think of nothing or the nothingness I often think of the word “nothing” (“n-o-t-h-i-n-g”) or the word “nothingness” (“n-o-t-h-i-n-g-n-e-s-s”) because the words “nothing” and “nothingness” exist as well as (for example) the words “zero” and “infinity”. What do you think when you think of God?
To a point yes and to a point no. The word theist and atheist and agnostic have different meanings to different people. You have a god, you have religion, you have no god, you have no religion, you have inbetween , you actually have religious atheists and non religious theists…
Do you not believe that there is very much lie, hypocrisy, blatancy, bravado, showing-off, just exhibitionism when some people behave, speak, think about anything and everything that has to do with “θεός”, “theós”, thus with God, with theology, with antitheology, with theisms, with antitheism, etc., often even then if those people “believe” (!) that they are “atheists”, so that it is difficult to say who is more theistic - the theist or the antitheist or even the atheist?
It is not possible to „know“ God because if it were the belief in him would make no sense anymore. Those who just want to oppose the theists say that they „know“ that God does not exist, although it is impossible to know that, and when they say „know“ they mean „believe“, so that one can never know wether the atheists or the antitheists are the real deists, the real believers in God respectively substituted God.
