If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

hmm, just skimming through the wiki, "Tao is said to be ineffable". That doesn't seem like much of a God expression. Yin Yang, light dark, God is just everything type deal... God is ice-cream and God is dog shit, God is just as bad as he is good. I don't buy that as being a God. Seems like this God is reducible down to positive and negative spatial flux. Well, we certainly wouldn't exist without magnetic fields but I hardly doubt they are conscious beings that care about us and planned our existence.

Aristotle, I don't have a clue what he thought, he didn't believe in a dozen superhero's like the other Greeks or what?

 

You're quoting wiki. That pretty much negates any real conversation. G-d is def more real than that. Ahahaha!

 

That there is no evidence for stated god's existence.

Theists have tried to logically explain god's existence, but it is not possible. Logic and theism simply cannot coexist, because it requires faith to believe in something without the evidence to support its existence.

 

I personally don't believe in the evidence for the "murder" performed by O.J. Simpson. Somebody did it, claimed the family of the deceased (I might not find evidence for her name; one can find most everything on the internet.) But, then, I'm not an empiricist.

On the other hand, I understand that the evidence for God's presence, or past presence, on Earth is considerate to an overwhelming consistent review of the cultural-anthropological history of mankind having motivation and theoretical evaluation for simply living in peace and co-existence of tribes and races. Of course, maybe we as humans don't want to live in tolerance and peaceful co-existence. There is no proof for that. The knowledge is the other way,

Well, then, faith at contradiction should believe in War. That would mean that the empirical wars of the past show God can exist for selfish reasons. God just the same has lots of room for concepts of existence. Rationalistically, God does not Exist for selfish reasons; that's all Richard Dawkins I believe is claiming. :mickey::devil:

 

That would be the Argumentum ad populem fallacy. Just because many people believe something to exist does not make it real, especially when confronted with the actual underwhelming verifiable evidence for its existence.

 

Do you believe a man can have qualities that make him superior to other men, like a theist can't be logical or an atheist has a superior view in life to a theist?

If so you believe in a god or gods by definition:

1. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some forceRelated: divine
2. an image, idol, or symbolic representation of such a deity
3. any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god
4. a man who has qualities regarded as making him superior to other men

Where do these expanded definitions come from?, from the fact that the word god means that which we invoke.

It is not helpful to deny phenomena. Faith is required to formulate perception.

 

What is good and what is bad?

 

Faith is refused for the loser types, because they'd want to be at evolvement to the unformulated perceptions. Just the same they still need to believe in God because the subject is put to the test for evidence, yes, evidence for the experience being Good to the Heart.

 

You clearly have no understanding of atheism due to the fact that you would rather semantically twist the definitions of words to suit your own misguided interpretation of the world.

False.

 

But, all agreed, losing and winning, has no point for faith. Assumptions run the gambit too.

 

Religous faith is simply unnecessary.

False. One does not need to believe that dragons exists to discuss them. Fictional, mythological concepts are discussed all the time without those things needing to be real.

The difference is that I understand those things to not be real, unlike people who would rather have the comforting lie over the harsh truth.

 

For what purpose discuss dragons. On the other hand abstract intangible love may be discussed for emotion at once as for conscience and deciding a relationship. That is the advantage of religion and organized religion.:2thumbsup:

 

If someone writes a fantasy novel about dragons, one may want to discuss the novel. It is no different with the fictional bible.

Religion is not needed for anything, least of all love. Love can be experienced without theism in any of its forms, which is quite more apparent through secular humanism than religious missions.

 

You mean the religious doctrine of atheism? Semantics is the study of meaning and the dictionary is a record of those meanings we share. In order to maintain your argument you are neglecting evidence.

Where is your argument?

 

There is no such thing.

 

Some comments are so plain ridiculous, they do not need to be acknowledged with an argument. Stating false does just fine.

 

For you. Stating your wish that it is so for everybody does not make it so

So:

False :sunny:

 

Then how is it I don't understand atheism? More likely here you do not take my meaning of god nor I yours.

 

My wish happens to coincide with reality. The same cannot be stated for mythological religious beliefs.

 

a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms:nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism

IRRELIGION