PROOF that GOD Exists......

Originally Posted by mindphuk

It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science.

Not correct when we have taken pains to define the difference. There are religions and sceptics. You, me, Mr. H., etc. are sceptics. Then there are Militant Atheists that have corrupted the concepts of healthy scepticism. It begins to apprear like Cult which are subversive cadres against the social order. There are cultish forces in science, that are not indicitive of science and there are cultish forces in society that are not indicitive of society. Indeed, there are cultish forces in Religion, that are not Religion.

Rewiting of history and using the arguments behind Religion, Science, Society, or Scepticism, is the mark of Cult. Big Atheism is not the same as just being sceptical. Sceptism is very personal. Atheism obviously and publically against organized religion. Denials don't matter.

The Atheist see the religious as confused and somewhat mentally inferior, though they may deny that. The Atheist assumes the sceptics are supportive.

I am not.

To be categorized i would fall into place well with the existential nihilist. Religious/spiritual human animals have a physiological disorder, sometimes willed, sometimes not.

The hard atheist is in the same category as the theist. One who knows god does or doesn't exist is a liar, because no one can know these things.

The agnostic atheist (i don't believe in god but i am not certain of its existence or non existence) or agnostic theist (i believe in god but i am not certain of its existence or non existence) are the truthful humans. Each can understand that no one knows, but choose to give an opinion on the subject based on their experiences throughout life.

It is when someone claims certainty in the absence of it when insanity begins to take hold, the hard atheists and theists face this dilemma more so than others.

Atheist is nothing but a short word to describe "i don't believe in god" some don't understand that just because one does not believe in an omnipotent all powerful creator of the universe, that they do not hold onto other fantasy based beliefs... because many still do.

When coming to terms with absurdity, sometimes it can be so psychologically overwhelming for the beginner atheist, they will choose to replace the beliefs prior with another more preferable belief system that does not use god as a requirement for the belief.

Examples:
Buddhism
Starchild
Collective consciousness

Pretty much any belief that gives one a sense of meaning or purpose in his/her existence. Something that makes them feel special or unique.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the existential nihilist perceptions about existence, here is a very short summery. I also have a few threads on the subject going into more detail.

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. With respect to the universe, existential nihilism posits that a single human or even the entire human species is insignificant, without purpose and unlikely to change in the totality of existence. According to the theory, each individual is an isolated being "thrown" into the universe, barred from knowing "why", yet compelled to invent meaning.The inherent meaninglessness of life is largely explored in the philosophical school of existentialism, where one can potentially create his or her own subjective "meaning" or "purpose".

Lightit, this is not drama, this is philosophy. It's not for everyone.

Originally Posted by mindphuk

It appears in spite of participating in numerous threads over many, many months, some people (eye), are unable to correctly define atheist and continue to conflate it with rational skepticism, just as others conflate atheism and science.

...if a person does not believe in God, are they not atheist? If the individual in question was raised in a secular environment, believes that 'belief' in God = fairy tales, etc, etc... what would you say is the case?

...go back over these threads and you'll see that the ones conflating science and atheism are the 'atheists and skeptics'. Not all of them (mind), but a lot.

(if by 'others' you mean all who conflate, I apologize )

As we have seen since the beginning of time, religion will create and destroy the best of humanity. For religion we fight, kill, love, hate, build, destroy, suffer, rejoice, and in the end as the lights go dim, no matter what as an individual you believe in, we pray...........The power of belief is deeper than anyone can define, or understand.

I see the future of our society to do as all societies in the past have done.....fall apart to the brink of extinction and then rebuild on an idea of perfection and superiority, that like religion is just human nature, but that's just my opinion, and like we say, "Opinions are like assholes, we all have one, and most stink"

P.S: I did a search, typing strange religion, and this is what came up :About « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Hopefully this will have you rolling on the floor, like it did me !!

Originally Posted by eye exaggerate

...if a person does not believe in God, are they not atheist? If the individual in question was raised in a secular environment, believes that 'belief' in God = fairy tales, etc, etc... what would you say is the case?

...go back over these threads and you'll see that the ones conflating science and atheism are the 'atheists and skeptics'. Not all of them (mind), but a lot.

(if by 'others' you mean all who conflate, I apologize )

What would be the opposite of staunch atheist? A disloyal atheist?

To me this is further proof of the asinine label of atheism. Can someone be a staunchly unconvinced of gremlins? It's difficult to smoothly integrate the label into our language because it is not normal to label the rejection of a claim.

Some atheists have never heard the arugments, so they can be thought of as 'soft' atheists I suppose. Perhaps staunch atheism could mean, someone who has thought about it and solidified their position, but it didn't seem to be the way it was used here.

This is a nice little music video from the Pastafarians, believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think the confusion is that I had a couple debates over the value of science and it's position. Just because I use science to debate, doesn't mean it's my whole life. I have a sunburn from playing baseball with my family. While having fun with my family, I never considered science, theism, or atheism. I was busy living. So were my children, and wife.

I did however research consumer reports when selecting my gear. I didn't go into Big 5 and say, "Which gloves and bats are best?"

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

What would be the opposite of staunch atheist? A disloyal atheist?

To me this is further proof of the asinine label of atheism. Can someone be a staunchly unconvinced of gremlins? It's difficult to smoothly integrate the label into our language because it is not normal to label the rejection of a claim.

Some atheists have never heard the arugments, so they can be thought of as 'soft' atheists I suppose. Perhaps staunch atheism could mean, someone who has thought about it and solidified their position, but it didn't seem to be the way it was used here.

...here's one of those situations where a word takes on an unintended tone. Staunch, to me, is how I am toward my belief in God. The intent of my post to afrawfraw was a humorous one. Nothing to do with how I perceive him, or atheism I don't come from a tainted view of 'them', imagine if none of us had made any formal declaration of opinions - would we know the difference? (here, in the forum)