God is a lie, you probably can't change my mind.
For a strong atheist like you, ofcourse you would say that. Some people thinks they already have a proof but they did not found it by their eyes, it's in the prayer. Where if that someone challengly wish to a god who he doubtly exist but then that wish would become true in the other day multiple times then he/she would believe it (not precisely but some do)
Some just won't pray ofcourse it's against their pride to do it, just don't care ,don't give a concern and there's no need. That's why I came to the conclusion that the only one who prays is the one who are needy, the one who thinks they can't do something by themselves, also the one who was indoctrinated.
Also, people believe it coz they take bible seriously, was indoctrinated or either they don't doubt it and lastly they found comfort by the Bible's good words.
I'm not changing your mind, just gives clearer view about the opposite perspective of yours coz if an atheist like you don't understand Christians, you would end up insulting them like most atheist does.
For a strong atheist like you, ofcourse you would say that
The problem with atheism is that it is itself an irrational position. You can prove this simply by arguing with one. You will notice at some point that they evoke all the same fallacies as theists, albeit in reverse. Atheism is effectively a social backlash against centuries of oppressive rulership from the Catholic Church. It is understandable, but not rational. The only rational position is agnosticism because in this case the subject refuses to engage with the question. This is the correct response because the question itself is irrational. Neither answer can be proved or disproved and hence from a scientific perspective neither answer is falsifiable. You can't prove God exists and you can't prove he doesn't exist.
That said, if backed into a corner I myself will identify as an atheist, purely on the basis of what I consider the probabilities to be. It isn't a rational position however.
. The only rational position is agnosticism because in this case the subject refuses to engage with the question. This is the correct response because the question itself is irrational.
To claim one is an Atheist is perfectly rational depending on how you define Atheism, If you say you believe in a god the burden of proof is with you if you want to convince others. I reject the claim that a god exists until convincing evidence can be demonstrated to prove otherwise my rejection of the claim is perfectly rational.
I know these concepts are very difficult for you to comprehend giving your chronic mental illness and alcholism , let me help Wiki is your friend ......
Some varieties of atheism
on right Explicit "positive" / "strong" / "hard" atheists assert that "At least one deity exists" is false.
on right Explicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists do not assert the above but reject or eschew a belief that any deities exist.
on left Implicit "negative" / "weak" / "soft" atheists include agnostics (and infants or babies) who do not believe or do not know that a deity or deities exist and who have not explicitly rejected or eschewed such a belief.
Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.
The terms "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" were used by Antony Flew in 1976 and have appeared in George H. Smith'sand Michael Martin's writings since 1990.
Nothing to disprove it, either.
How exactly does one go about proving the absence of something from the universe? That's literally an impossible task. Even if it were possible, the moment it was confirmed there was no God inside the universe, you wack jobs would be bleating about how he lives outside.
To make a statement like that you have placed the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders to prove the veracity of your claim.
To say one is an Atheist from a logically sound position is simply to reject the assertion made by a believer that there are gods because you have not been convinced by any evidence put forward so far to convince you otherwise.
To say one is an Atheist from a logically sound position is simply to reject the assertion made by a believer that there are gods
But that is irrational, Jody. It's a pity that you aren't intelligent enough to understand that. You have no responsibility or logical grounds to reject someone else's assertion about gods. Since God/gods is a closed question (i.e. yes or no), you can't answer without taking an irrational position.
There are many perspectives on god in many different religions and philosophies. Perhaps you were familiarized with a concept of god that completely lacks evidence for god’s existence. There are other perspectives in which god is defined in such a way that god necessarily exists. Perhaps your response to such definitions would be that they do not reflect your understanding of god, which necessarily lacks proof. But your perspective isn’t a fault in their definition.
Perhaps god is a lie because of your perspective. If so, you would have to change your conceptualization of god before your mind could change on god’s existence.
There are many perspectives on god in many different religions and philosophies.
More accurate to say there are many different Gods. Monotheism is not the only form of religion, and in fact only began to dominate around 1500 years ago.
There are other perspectives in which god is defined in such a way that god necessarily exists
Stupid perspectives. Not even perspectives at all, really. More like glaring logical fallacies. If one is able to arbitrarily define God then obviously it is up to the individual whether God exists. Unless God has a universal and objective definition the question of his existence does not even make sense.
More accurate to say there are many different Gods.
That’s also a perspective. Even Hinduism, the oldest currently practiced polytheistic religion, has notions of a singular universal spiritual entity (Brahman).
That’s a common response from stupid people encountering a subject of which they are ignorant.
More like glaring logical fallacies.
No. Not like that at all.
If one is able to arbitrarily define God then obviously it is up to the individual whether God exists.
Any perspective on god that has made it into a book is not the result of a mere arbitrary definition. Typically, arbitrary descriptions come from atheists, when they describe what they do not believe in. They rarely describe anything that theists actually believe.
If a thing exists, then the existence of incorrect definitions or descriptions has no bearing on that fact.
Unless God has a universal and objective definition the question of his existence does not even make sense.
Definitions do not bring things into existence. The only thing that makes a definition objective, is if it correctly describes an objectively existing thing, other incorrect definitions notwithstanding.
Furthermore, if someone describes god in a way that necessarily exists, then your disagreement that what they describe is god does not eliminate the existence of thatbwhich they describe. Your insistence that there does not exist a man on a thrown in the sky called god will have no effect whatsoever on the existence of god as described otherwise, specifically a god whose description necessarily, objectively exists.
Since I can rely on you to consistently respond in the stupidest, most irrelevant manner, I’ll save you the time by telling you now that I won’t likely respond. You’re welcome.