Anti Atheism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Atheists define god as non existent and impossible. But why?

Why not define god as existent and possible, as all things are?

Because nothing, does not exist. Everything exists. Unicorns, leprechauns, medusa, cyclopse, these all exist. Because everything that is imagined, is based on reality. Therefore you cannot imagine anything that is unreal. For example, a unicorn is the idea of a horse, combined with magic, combined with a horn. People define unicorns as a magical horse with a horn. Anything you think of is grounded in existence. You cannot think, cannot imagine, anything that does not exist.

Because if it didn’t exist, then it would be impossible for you to think of and imagine. This is how you atheists define god, correct?

Then you claim that god is impossible. But this is false, because nothing is impossible. All is possible. All exists. All is grounded in the foundation of reality. Atheists must admit that they believe things are impossible. And everything impossible, is how atheists define god. But just because something is impossible to you, subjectively and through opinion, doesn’t mean it is objectively and existentially. Atheists are just close minded bigots, who reject possibilities and probabilities. It’s actually true that god is 100% probable. God is the only essence which must exist absolutely. God is the only existential thing that cannot be questioned or doubted, no matter how much atheists attempt to try. God is the very foundation of reality.

Atheists try to reject god, by redefining him as impossible, instead of as absolutely certain.

But many things are impossible to atheists. Atheists accept limitations, ignorance, and lack imagination. Many things are impossible to atheists. Atheists are chained and imprisoned by impossibilities.

It is impossible for atheists to be open minded, learning, expanding, enlightened creatures. Because atheist hate possibilities. Atheists reject every “impossibility” that scares them.

When an atheist defines something as impossible (like god) then you know that this is the atheist’s deepest fear. Impossibility is the direct, most immediate result of fear. It is denial of reality, denial of god.

2

Humans used to believe flying was impossible. But then one revolutionary man, set about it, and proved all humanity wrong.

Humans used to believe the earth circled around the sun, instead of vice versa. But then one revolutionary man, set about it, and proved all humanity wrong.

Just because your limitations are apparent, and you see impossibility everywhere, doesn’t mean that your closed mind applies to others.

What is impossible to you, is not impossible to the greatest men of all time. The greatest men defy all your petty, weak, limitations. Isn’t your idea of impossibility pathetic?

Your “impossibility” is just your mental limitation. You lack imagination and willpower. This is why god does not appear to you. God only appears to the most powerful men.

Atheists are weak, mentally, and close minded.

3

It’s actually entertaining to see people strawman atheism so desperately. It indicates that theism is so weak that it can’t stand up to its negation unless you strawman it, so ironically you’re making your own position seem weak to anybody who has the slightest idea of what atheism ACTUALLY is.

4

Really?
So, if an atheist posts something dumb, then it means that atheism is weak?

5

If an atheist strawmans theism then yes, it indicates that his position is too weak to stand up to theism so he has to strawman it and he makes atheism look bad.

6

If this is a straw man, then define god in any other way than I just did.

Admit that you believe god is impossible, and my reasoning is sound.

How do atheists define god, other than impossibility???

You know I’m right. You just don’t want to admit it.

7

Strawman is not the point. People can be dumb. Period. People can be wrong. Period.

8

Yeah, that OP is a clusterfuck. I don’t even know where to start.

I don’t know of any atheists who would agree with a single claim you made about atheism.

9

Challenge:

One atheist, any one of you, define god as possible. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Or, admit that you define god as impossible, as your premise. The reason why you cannot consider the concept of god, rationally, is because you define god as impossible from the onset.

Atheists are not open minded, but in fact, more close minded than the theists they generally accuse of.

10

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.

11

There is evidence for everything though.

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?

12

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?

13

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.

14

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. :laughing:

15

One moment, please! I am dodging the point? Which point do you mean?

So you think and/or imagine nothing when you think of “zero”, or “nothing”, or the “nothingness”?

16

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.

17

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.

18

Wizard, you’re dodging my last point:

Do you think nothing then?

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?

19

Emmm… not really.
The discussion (surprisingly civil thus far) has been about the concepts of the words, not what people believe.

20

Well then I stand corrected.