Atheism is not Logical

[Atla]

Alta!

To answer your opening question, the universal concept of a God (or the opposite of no-God) at the very least, spans not only human causation, but 'cosmological causation' as well. The concept of God is postulated throughout antiquity and in over 75% of all philosophical domains.

Let's take a quick snapshot in time. You are trying to support your position that there are basically no apposing features of existence necessary for understanding the actual nature of existence (or reality whichever makes the best sense to you), correct?

Well, first, you started to pretend that you know some-thing, now through this sojourn of fac- finding you're either back-peddling or claiming ignorance. Sorry to be so brutally honest. For example, you said earlier that there are no objective truth's (correct me please) and no subject-object dynamic, now you are saying there are a little of both. And so, it would be wise to now slow down and parse each of your suppositions individually in order to clarify your position. Accordingly, my critique of your response number 1, to the opposite's of subjectivity an objectivity (which you are denying):

a. Are the following true or false relative to ojective truth:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

b. Does math require a subject in order to appercieve mathematical equasions?

c. You say that mahtematical objects don't exist. If mathematical objects are objective facts describing and to some degree explaining) the univrse, are you also implying that the universe doesn't exist?

d. If conscious existence includes abstract 'objects' of reason or cognition (math/intellect/the Will/sentience) and, you are claiming abstract objects really don't exist, does that imply that you yourself don't really exist?

Alta!

To answer your opening question, the universal concept of a God (or the opposite of no-God) at the very least, spans not only human causation, but 'cosmological causation' as well. The concept of God is postulated throughout antiquity and in over 75% of all philosophical domains.

Let's take a quick snapshot in time. You are trying to support your position that there are basically no apposing features of existence necessary for understanding the actual nature of existence (or reality whichever makes the best sense to you), correct?

Well, first, you started to pretend that you know some-thing, now through this sojourn of fac- finding you're either back-peddling or claiming ignorance. Sorry to be so brutally honest. For example, you said earlier that there are no objective truth's (correct me please) and no subject-object dynamic, now you are saying there are a little of both. And so, it would be wise to now slow down and parse each of your suppositions individually in order to clarify your position. Accordingly, my critique of your response number 1, to the opposite's of subjectivity an objectivity (which you are denying):[/quote]
Okay to be brutally honest, if you don't know that "subjective-objective" has multiple meanings depending on context and that I wasn't back-peddling, then maybe it's pointless for me to guess which one you mean in every question.

1. define "objective" here
2. true
3. define "metaphysical" here
4. Don't know. Some claim that the "laws" of our universe could be in flux, which might mean that math could also be in flux.
5. Doesn't "describe" it, but I think it could a kind of reflection about the universe's workings.
6. I guess being good at counting could have a little survival advantage.
7. I guess so, both are built using the standard human cognitive capabilities.

b. Define "appercieve", a calculator can also process them.

c. No.

d. Of course I don't "really" exist the way we usually assume we exist, what could be more basic in philosophy than that. I exist as abstract thoughts that make it seem like I exist as siomething more, a real abstract entity, but that's an illusion.

[Sculptor1]

Spock is not dead, like Christ (another fictional character), he lives on on many incarnations, and will probably outlast Christ.
Leonard Nimoy, though, is dead. He has not "passed". I had no idea death was an exam. I'm pretty sure you don't need to pass, you just end.

Was George Washington a fictional character too?

Not as much as JC.
Its probably true that there was a Rabbi that was crucified.
But the discrepant accounts indicate a cobbling together of borrowed myths and composites.
And all depictions are essentially fictional and bear little relationship to anyone living a that time.
The man was a far cry from the Teutonic Beauty he is often depicted.
image_2022-06-15_215345233.png

Just an observation. And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional descrepancies, again?

I think the relevance of your posts has declined vis-à-vis the thread.

There are aspects of Washington that are fictional, though there was such a person.
JC has much less reliable evidence, as account of his actions were not written during his lifetime as were Washington's.
Where the facts of GW's life are in broad agreement, accounts the most basic facts of JC's life show huge errors, and other accounts have already been deleted by the church authorities to try to stem the tide of inconsistencies. (eg Apocrypha)
I would have thought, that if JC were still alive, somewhere it would be in everyone's interests to set the record straight. However JC acts exactly like any other moral dead person. Odd for a person with eternal life to allow his "religion" to be so damn confused.
So yes. JC is fictional. A lot more than GW, but not as much as Gandalf whose author never pretended him to be real. The advantage of Gandalf is that his message and account of his life are coherent.

Given the fact that recent historical figures like GW and Abe Lincoln tend to attract buckets of falsity despite their comprehensive and very recent biographies, I would not wish to turn them into cults such as the cult of Lincoln as the "freer of slaves" (which is BS).
So how much less would I want to make a cult out of a 2000 years old myth written from accounts of illiterate goat herders?

[Sculptor1]

There is no LOGIC here.

Ok. So logic to you is that humans (or some other similar kind of aliens) are 100% certain to be the ultimate expression of sentience in the universe, and we can have total confidence that aggregated sentience cannot possibly emerge.

Even Dawkins would disagree with you.

I have resolved to no longer respond to cheap straw men. If you want to discuss something then you should not misrepresent your interlocutor's POV.
I expected better from you.

My post seemed appropriate to your Twitteresque CAPS response, which was little better than "Nyah nyah nyah". If you don't want to give the wrong impression about your stances, you need to communicate with eloquence and temperance. Not snarky, reflexive jabs.

You are reading your won reaction into my post.
"There is no LOGIC here" is not a "snarky reflexive jab", and cannot be described as "Nyah, nyah, Nyah". The "caps" are intended to refer back to the thread title.
But thank you for letting us all now the content of your mind. How adult of you.

"There is no LOGIC here"
Is a challenge, that has not yet been seriously taken up.

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta!

To answer your opening question, the universal concept of a God (or the opposite of no-God) at the very least, spans not only human causation, but 'cosmological causation' as well. The concept of God is postulated throughout antiquity and in over 75% of all philosophical domains.

Let's take a quick snapshot in time. You are trying to support your position that there are basically no apposing features of existence necessary for understanding the actual nature of existence (or reality whichever makes the best sense to you), correct?

Well, first, you started to pretend that you know some-thing, now through this sojourn of fac- finding you're either back-peddling or claiming ignorance. Sorry to be so brutally honest. For example, you said earlier that there are no objective truth's (correct me please) and no subject-object dynamic, now you are saying there are a little of both. And so, it would be wise to now slow down and parse each of your suppositions individually in order to clarify your position. Accordingly, my critique of your response number 1, to the opposite's of subjectivity an objectivity (which you are denying):

a. Are the following true or false relative to ojective truth:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

b. Does math require a subject in order to appercieve mathematical equasions?

c. You say that mahtematical objects don't exist. If mathematical objects are objective facts describing and to some degree explaining) the univrse, are you also implying that the universe doesn't exist?

d. If conscious existence includes abstract 'objects' of reason or cognition (math/intellect/the Will/sentience) and, you are claiming abstract objects really don't exist, does that imply that you yourself don't really exist?

Alta!

To answer your opening question, the universal concept of a God (or the opposite of no-God) at the very least, spans not only human causation, but 'cosmological causation' as well. The concept of God is postulated throughout antiquity and in over 75% of all philosophical domains.

Let's take a quick snapshot in time. You are trying to support your position that there are basically no apposing features of existence necessary for understanding the actual nature of existence (or reality whichever makes the best sense to you), correct?

Well, first, you started to pretend that you know some-thing, now through this sojourn of fac- finding you're either back-peddling or claiming ignorance. Sorry to be so brutally honest. For example, you said earlier that there are no objective truth's (correct me please) and no subject-object dynamic, now you are saying there are a little of both. And so, it would be wise to now slow down and parse each of your suppositions individually in order to clarify your position. Accordingly, my critique of your response number 1, to the opposite's of subjectivity an objectivity (which you are denying):

Okay to be brutally honest, if you don't know that "subjective-objective" has multiple meanings depending on context and that I wasn't back-peddling, then maybe it's pointless for me to guess which one you mean in every question.

1. define "objective" here
2. true
3. define "metaphysical" here
4. Don't know. Some claim that the "laws" of our universe could be in flux, which might mean that math could also be in flux.
5. Doesn't "describe" it, but I think it could a kind of reflection about the universe's workings.
6. I guess being good at counting could have a little survival advantage.
7. I guess so, both are built using the standard human cognitive capabilities.

b. Define "appercieve", a calculator can also process them.

c. No.

d. Of course I don't "really" exist the way we usually assume we exist, what could be more basic in philosophy than that. I exist as abstract thoughts that make it seem like I exist as siomething more, a real abstract entity, but that's an illusion.
[/quote]

Alta!

Most of your answers are very troubling ( i.e., your responses: "I guess", "don't know"- answering questions with questions because you don't know- "I think", "define apperceive", "define objective", math is "in flux", ad nauseum).

We'll get back to flushing out, pardon the directness, your rhetorical double-speak, but this observation is starting to rear its ugly head (it is so glaring I can't help but to ask):

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Please share your thoughts if you can.

[3017Metaphysician]

Was George Washington a fictional character too?

Not as much as JC.
Its probably true that there was a Rabbi that was crucified.
But the discrepant accounts indicate a cobbling together of borrowed myths and composites.
And all depictions are essentially fictional and bear little relationship to anyone living a that time.
The man was a far cry from the Teutonic Beauty he is often depicted.
image_2022-06-15_215345233.png

Just an observation. And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional descrepancies, again?

I think the relevance of your posts has declined vis-à-vis the thread.

There are aspects of Washington that are fictional, though there was such a person.
JC has much less reliable evidence, as account of his actions were not written during his lifetime as were Washington's.
Where the facts of GW's life are in broad agreement, accounts the most basic facts of JC's life show huge errors, and other accounts have already been deleted by the church authorities to try to stem the tide of inconsistencies. (eg Apocrypha)
I would have thought, that if JC were still alive, somewhere it would be in everyone's interests to set the record straight. However JC acts exactly like any other moral dead person. Odd for a person with eternal life to allow his "religion" to be so damn confused.
So yes. JC is fictional. A lot more than GW, but not as much as Gandalf whose author never pretended him to be real. The advantage of Gandalf is that his message and account of his life are coherent.

Given the fact that recent historical figures like GW and Abe Lincoln tend to attract buckets of falsity despite their comprehensive and very recent biographies, I would not wish to turn them into cults such as the cult of Lincoln as the "freer of slaves" (which is BS).
So how much less would I want to make a cult out of a 2000 years old myth written from accounts of illiterate goat herders?

Thank you! I believe your response only serves the OP premise that, in this case, your a-theism is based primarily upon emotion. I'll ask again, (because you dodged the question) and think carefully because your responses will be telling:

And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional discrepancies, again?

As a postscript, is your religious belief system akin to political supposition?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

[Pattern-chaser]

Again, absolute certainty about the existence of a larger, aggregated intelligence (aka a deities) is illogical but scepticism towards such things in lieu of evidence is logical.

I am surprised that this is not obvious to anyone and everyone who considers it. Is it just me? Isn't it 'obvious'? It seems so to me.

As I wrote to Sculptor1:

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

The first line is the non-contentious one, the one everyone knows and understands. It introduces the 2nd line, which (somehow) logicians never seem to realise. Funny that...

Oddly, he didn't respond, except to misquote me to (seem to) say the opposite of what I actually said. As per my ending, above: funny that.

[Sculptor1]

Not as much as JC.
Its probably true that there was a Rabbi that was crucified.
But the discrepant accounts indicate a cobbling together of borrowed myths and composites.
And all depictions are essentially fictional and bear little relationship to anyone living a that time.
The man was a far cry from the Teutonic Beauty he is often depicted.
image_2022-06-15_215345233.png

Just an observation. And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional descrepancies, again?

I think the relevance of your posts has declined vis-à-vis the thread.

There are aspects of Washington that are fictional, though there was such a person.
JC has much less reliable evidence, as account of his actions were not written during his lifetime as were Washington's.
Where the facts of GW's life are in broad agreement, accounts the most basic facts of JC's life show huge errors, and other accounts have already been deleted by the church authorities to try to stem the tide of inconsistencies. (eg Apocrypha)
I would have thought, that if JC were still alive, somewhere it would be in everyone's interests to set the record straight. However JC acts exactly like any other moral dead person. Odd for a person with eternal life to allow his "religion" to be so damn confused.
So yes. JC is fictional. A lot more than GW, but not as much as Gandalf whose author never pretended him to be real. The advantage of Gandalf is that his message and account of his life are coherent.

Given the fact that recent historical figures like GW and Abe Lincoln tend to attract buckets of falsity despite their comprehensive and very recent biographies, I would not wish to turn them into cults such as the cult of Lincoln as the "freer of slaves" (which is BS).
So how much less would I want to make a cult out of a 2000 years old myth written from accounts of illiterate goat herders?

Thank you! I believe your response only serves the OP premise that, in this case, your a-theism is based primarily upon emotion. I'll ask again, (because you dodged the question) and think carefully because your responses will be telling:

And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional discrepancies, again?

As a postscript, is your religious belief system akin to political supposition?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

Whatever.
Either stick to the thread or do not.

[Sculptor1]

Again, absolute certainty about the existence of a larger, aggregated intelligence (aka a deities) is illogical but scepticism towards such things in lieu of evidence is logical.

I am surprised that this is not obvious to anyone and everyone who considers it. Is it just me? Isn't it 'obvious'? It seems so to me.

As I wrote to Sculptor1:

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

The first line is the non-contentious one, the one everyone knows and understands. It introduces the 2nd line, which (somehow) logicians never seem to realise. Funny that...

Oddly, he didn't respond, except to misquote me to (seem to) say the opposite of what I actually said. As per my ending, above: funny that.

I did respond to you several times.
It's just that you are stuck in your own prejudice and stopped listening.

[3017Metaphysician]

Just an observation. And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional descrepancies, again?

I think the relevance of your posts has declined vis-à-vis the thread.

There are aspects of Washington that are fictional, though there was such a person.
JC has much less reliable evidence, as account of his actions were not written during his lifetime as were Washington's.
Where the facts of GW's life are in broad agreement, accounts the most basic facts of JC's life show huge errors, and other accounts have already been deleted by the church authorities to try to stem the tide of inconsistencies. (eg Apocrypha)
I would have thought, that if JC were still alive, somewhere it would be in everyone's interests to set the record straight. However JC acts exactly like any other moral dead person. Odd for a person with eternal life to allow his "religion" to be so damn confused.
So yes. JC is fictional. A lot more than GW, but not as much as Gandalf whose author never pretended him to be real. The advantage of Gandalf is that his message and account of his life are coherent.

Given the fact that recent historical figures like GW and Abe Lincoln tend to attract buckets of falsity despite their comprehensive and very recent biographies, I would not wish to turn them into cults such as the cult of Lincoln as the "freer of slaves" (which is BS).
So how much less would I want to make a cult out of a 2000 years old myth written from accounts of illiterate goat herders?

Thank you! I believe your response only serves the OP premise that, in this case, your a-theism is based primarily upon emotion. I'll ask again, (because you dodged the question) and think carefully because your responses will be telling:

And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional discrepancies, again?

As a postscript, is your religious belief system akin to political supposition?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

Whatever.
Either stick to the thread or do not.

I'm sorry, did you respond to that question yet? The thread is about something other than pure reason that is causing the a-theist (you I presume) to believe/disbelieve. For your convenience, I'll post the question(s) again for you to answer. Mind you, think carefully before you respond:

Thank you! I believe your response only serves the OP premise that, in this case, your a-theism is based primarily upon emotion. I'll ask again, (because you dodged the question) and think carefully because your responses will be telling:

And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional discrepancies, again?

As a postscript, is your religious belief system akin to political supposition?

[Atla]

Alta!

Most of your answers are very troubling ( i.e., your responses: "I guess", "don't know"- answering questions with questions because you don't know- "I think", "define apperceive", "define objective", math is "in flux", ad nauseum).

We'll get back to flushing out, pardon the directness, your rhetorical double-speak, but this observation is starting to rear its ugly head (it is so glaring I can't help but to ask):

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Please share your thoughts if you can.

You cling to certainty where there is none, that's why you have trouble with my answers. Of course I understand the nature of existence far better than you.

We can only work what we have, and this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God.

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta!

Most of your answers are very troubling ( i.e., your responses: "I guess", "don't know"- answering questions with questions because you don't know- "I think", "define apperceive", "define objective", math is "in flux", ad nauseum).

We'll get back to flushing out, pardon the directness, your rhetorical double-speak, but this observation is starting to rear its ugly head (it is so glaring I can't help but to ask):

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Please share your thoughts if you can.

You cling to certainty where there is none, that's why you have trouble with my answers. Of course I understand the nature of existence far better than you.

We can only work what we have, and this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God.

Sure, let's then "cling" what is real, or in metaphysics we call it the nature of reality. Back to our existential (essence v. existence) question for Alta:

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

[Atla]

Alta!

Most of your answers are very troubling ( i.e., your responses: "I guess", "don't know"- answering questions with questions because you don't know- "I think", "define apperceive", "define objective", math is "in flux", ad nauseum).

We'll get back to flushing out, pardon the directness, your rhetorical double-speak, but this observation is starting to rear its ugly head (it is so glaring I can't help but to ask):

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Please share your thoughts if you can.

You cling to certainty where there is none, that's why you have trouble with my answers. Of course I understand the nature of existence far better than you.

We can only work what we have, and this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God.

You seem to cling to certainties so you don't seem to understand that ultimately everything is a guess. But again, we can only work with what we have, we can only base our guesses on what we have.

And this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God. Their best guess is that there are cats and gods, but there is no God.
Sure, let's then "cling" what is real, or in metaphysics we call it the nature of reality. Back to our existential (essence v. existence) question for Alta:

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta!

Most of your answers are very troubling ( i.e., your responses: "I guess", "don't know"- answering questions with questions because you don't know- "I think", "define apperceive", "define objective", math is "in flux", ad nauseum).

We'll get back to flushing out, pardon the directness, your rhetorical double-speak, but this observation is starting to rear its ugly head (it is so glaring I can't help but to ask):

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Please share your thoughts if you can.

You cling to certainty where there is none, that's why you have trouble with my answers. Of course I understand the nature of existence far better than you.

We can only work what we have, and this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God.

You seem to cling to certainties so you don't seem to understand that ultimately everything is a guess. But again, we can only work with what we have, we can only base our guesses on what we have.

And this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God. Their best guess is that there are cats and gods, but there is no God.
Sure, let's then "cling" what is real, or in metaphysics we call it the nature of reality. Back to our existential (essence v. existence) question for Alta:

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

2nd request:

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

[Atla]

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

You seem to cling to certainties so you don't seem to understand that ultimately everything is a guess. But again, we can only work with what we have, we can only base our guesses on what we have.

And this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God. Their best guess is that there are cats and dogs, but there is no God.

[3017Metaphysician]

If you don't understand the nature of existence (including your own-how/why the first species emerged, consciousness, essence/existence, cause and effect, etc. etc.), how do you or any a-theist make judgements about understanding the non-existence of a God? Using your words, is it just a "guess" too? Emotive reasons?

Logically, you seem to be struggling with that question. Should I make it more succinct, or word it differently so you could answer it?

Please share your thoughts if you are able.

You seem to cling to certainties so you don't seem to understand that ultimately everything is a guess. But again, we can only work with what we have, we can only base our guesses on what we have.

And this God fellow simply doesn't seem to be part of the known world. So atheists don't believe in God. Their best guess is that there are cats and dogs, but there is no God.

Are you trolling this thread?