Allah and the Universe

[nor]

1. Incorrect. Theists present evidence/arguments. Atheists reject the evidence/arguments. Unless the claim is now: "Atheists lack the belief in the evidence presented by theists.

Arguments, unless valid, aren't evidence of anything but perhaps ineptitude, in certain cases.

2. Apparently, there are plenty of rational reasons to be a theist: Intelligent, philosophical, creationist, whatever. Atheists, being the oppressed minority they are, simply reject these rational reasons for their own rational reasons.

From an atheist's perspective (made clear to appeal to your sentiment), if the theistic argument is invalid, accepting it regarldess is patently irrational — is that not the case?

2. Rational reasoning is obviously predicated on the theist or atheist, not all theists/atheistsTM are theists/atheists for the same reasons.

All theists are theists because they believe in god's existence; all atheists are atheists because they lack belief god's existence/reject theistic arguments — they are labeled as such for a reason. A shared one, necessarily.

Hence the need to either accept or reject the various theistic/atheistic claims, which is why a dog can't be theist/atheist because it requires rational reasoning to do so. Unless, you want to claim that dogs are atheist for lacking a belief in Dog.

If an individual doesn't believe in god, having never thought/heard of the concept, they're atheists by default; that's logic. Therefore atheism needn't require any "claims", as I've said.

To reject an argument, though, is to employ reasoning (rational, if that rejection is such) to arrive at a conclusion: the argument's falsity. Again, no knowledge necessarily required, as I illustrated in my previous post (its point obviously missed).

I reject the existence of a Multiverse. I can't be said to lack a belief in a multiverse because I've already been introduced to the concept. I can reject the rational reasoning for it, instead of retreating to philosophical cowardice of the word "Belief."

So knowledge of the existence of the concept of a multiverse fundamentally obviates one from lacking belief in a multiverse's existence? Seriously?

Okay; so do you lack belief in the existence of shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts? You've been introduced to the concept, so tread lightly around the possibility of the acceptance of the craven.

Atheists need to figure this out on their own.

Both atheists and theists have "figured it out" — your turn.

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Arguments, unless valid, aren't evidence of anything but perhaps ineptitude, in certain cases.

So, you reject the arguments. That's fine...and honest.

From an atheist's perspective (made clear to appeal to your sentiment), if the theistic argument is invalid, accepting it regarldess is patently irrational — is that not the case?

Correct.

All theists are theists because they believe in god's existence; all atheists are atheists because they lack belief god's existence/reject theistic arguments — they are labeled as such for a reason. A shared one, necessarily.

Correct. One caveat is that all theists/atheists come to believe/deny [in] God's existence through through different means. A philosophical atheist might reject the arguments for theism, while a materialist will reject God's existence lacking any material evidence, some atheist simply lack a belief in God because they've had a lobotomy, and so on. Same with theists. It's dishonest to categorize every theist/atheist into some amorphous, singular, entity. That is to deny their humanity, and I believe you are human (even if you are atheist ).

If an individual doesn't believe in god, having never thought/heard of the concept, they're atheists by default; that's logic.

Yes.

Therefore atheism needn't require any "claims", as I've said.

Not necessarily. Let's say the atheist in your example encounters a theist. The inevitable happens (you know...God). Is that atheist still an atheist since he no longer lacks a belief in God. Or is he atheist because he rejects the theists claims?

To reject an argument, though, is to employ reasoning (rational, if that rejection is such) to arrive at a conclusion: the argument's falsity. Again, no knowledge necessarily required, as I illustrated in my previous post (its point obviously missed).

First, try being civil. Second, you're correct.

So knowledge of the existence of the concept of a multiverse fundamentally obviates one from lacking belief in a multiverse's existence?

Yes.

Seriously?

Double yes. Because I'm no longer lacking in the belief in a multiverse. The concept is now in my head. The next step is either to accept or reject or mull it over.

Okay; so do you lack belief in the existence of shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts?

As ridiculous as it sounds, not anymore. Matter of fact, I'm trying to imagine such a thing. What would one look like?

You've been introduced to the concept, so tread lightly around the possibility of the acceptance of the craven.

As hilarious as it would be to see, I reject your claim.

Both atheists and theists have "figured it out" — your turn.

Figured out the Flew definition of atheism?

[Norexan]

Gnostic heresy is making a comeback, I hear. This view of a Demiurge isn’t so unique.

Neither is Allah. He is stolen from Bible and Yahweh is stolen from Semitic mythology. El Elohim Ellah Allah

What if I told you that same pseudo-god God El has a son Baal, god of thunder who was cast from heaven and become god of evil...

What if I told that same God in early Judaism has a Wife?

What if I told you that cube in Mecca is symbol of Saturn/Cronus, god who devour his children...Jupiter/Zeus god of thunder...

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Neither of Allah. He is stolen from Bible and Yahweh is stolen from Semitic mythology.

What if I told you that same pseudo-god God El has a son Baal, god of thunder who was cast from heaven and become god of evil...

What if I told that same God in early Judaism has a Wife?

Yes, I know. The History of God by Karen Armstrong. It's all in there.

Yes, Asherah who is also the sister Baal? I don't remember.

[Norexan]

Do you realize Judaeo-Christian god is a deity with pagan origin?

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Do you realize Judaeo-Christian god is a deity with pagan origin?

Yes.

[nor]

Correct. One caveat is that all theists/atheists come to believe/deny [in] God's existence through through different means. A philosophical atheist might reject the arguments for theism, while a materialist will reject God's existence lacking any material evidence, some atheist simply lack a belief in God because they've had a lobotomy, and so on. Same with theists. It's dishonest to categorize every theist/atheist into some amorphous, singular, entity. That is to deny their humanity, and I believe you are human

It's dishonest to, say, group theists together based on their theism? Again, seriously?

And to recognize the necessary (for the nomenclature to make any sense) commonality is to "group into some amorphous, singular entity", which is dehumanizing. Got it.

(even if you are atheist ).

When did I say that?

Not necessarily. Let's say the atheist in your example encounters a theist. The inevitable happens (you know...God). Is that atheist still an atheist since he no longer lacks a belief in God. Or is he atheist because he rejects the theists claims?

What claims? Do you not reject arguments in favor of Ra's existence? Does that make you an atheist?

If there was no change post encounter, the atheist remains an atheist.

First, try being civil.

I'm trying; where did I fail?

Figured out the Flew definition of atheism?

No; figure out:

the issue of how a non-thing can "be" a thing, as intimated by you

--

Double yes. Because I'm no longer lacking in the belief in a multiverse. The concept is now in my head. The next step is either to accept or reject or mull it over.

If you don't lack belief, you've belief; belief in the existence of a multiverse. So:

As ridiculous as it sounds, not anymore.

You believe in shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts.

Brilliant.

[Norexan]

Yes.

So you secretly recognize one pseudo-god among many..
Do you realize Hinduist have same beliefs?

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It's dishonest to, say, group theists together based on their theism? Again, seriously?

And to recognize the necessary (for the nomenclature to make any sense) commonality is to "group into some amorphous, singular entity", which is dehumanizing. Got it.

Well, yeah. Are all Asians good at math? Do all dogs bite strangers? Are all atheists angry? Are all west Africans fast runners?

When did I say that?

I inferred it. Am I wrong? Please correct my assumption, then.

What claims? Do you not reject arguments in favor of Ra's existence? Does that make you an atheist?

Any claims in general. It's a basic example. Details aren't really needed, but let's just say the theist in the example is a Ra-ist.

Did you know that the Romans considered Christians atheists for disbelieving in their gods? So, yeah it would technically make me atheist to Ra, but I don't identify as that since it would be a negative belief, and I believe in one more God that you don't, as Saint Dawkins would say.

If there was no change post encounter, the atheist remains an atheist.

Agreed.

I'm trying; where did I fail?

Would you describe yourself as a humble person or have you figured it(life) all out?

If you don't lack belief, you've belief; belief in the existence of a multiverse. So:

You believe in shit-flinging Venusian alien spacecrafts.

Brilliant.

I believe the concept of the multiverse exists. Yes. However, I reject the claim that it exists, physically. Same with your example of S-flinging Venusian spacecrafts. The idea now exists, I believe that, however you haven't presented any arguments for them, so I reject the claim.

You reject the idea of God.

Your problem may be conflating ideas with the physical universe. Is God a physical entity to you?

- - - Updated - - -

So you secretly recognize one pseudo-god among many..
Do you realize Hinduist have same beliefs?

Yes. Was it Brahmin, Shiva, and Vishnu? Something like that.

[Norexan]

Yes. Was it Brahmin, Shiva, and Vishnu? Something like that.

And you still don't consider how wrong is your beliefs...
Why do you warship god who demand slavery and forbids freedom?
Why do you warship god who punish people in sadistic ways....
Why do you warship a god who demand justice of fire and blood to bring peace?
Why do you warship a god when there is no omnipotence in his acts?
Why do you warship a god who don't have a knowledge of his creation called humans - our flows
Why do you warship a god who punish humans because of HIS flows?
Why do you warship a god when there is clear that we are made TO SERVE as his slaves and toys like literately.
Why don't you recognize the limits of his power as any low deities on Earth?
Who else need this deity when we can see he is oblivious a lier, spoils child and butcher.

THE DEVIL HIMSELF.