Deep thought: 2+2=22. Can you follow my thoughts/reasoning on the subject matter?! Awesomeness! Whoa, there must be some truth to it!

Duuude! Well-reasoned, thoughtful OPINIONS may be rare, but OPINIONS are not “agendas”, even if that’s what the hotties drop on Fox News! It’s chill to have an opinion, and it’s cool not to always be down with your crew. No worries, they’re still your boys.

Check it, Sven. There’s not a monster in the closet. A thoughtful, well-reasoned argument demonstrating that obvious truth is not like “religious zeal”. It’s just a “thoughtful, well-reasoned argument”, bro! GET ONE and hit me back, playa!

OUT

P.S. Yo! Saleem is a DUDE, bra! Haaaaaaaaa what’s up with THAT?!!

Aron, we get it that you do not believe in God and quite frankly, you hammered the point home. Lighten up man, at least Saleem was gracious enough to visit and read the blog and leave a comment. I doubt she expected to become embroiled in a debate.

I also enjoyed the posting and essay! Thanks!

God Bless,
Sven

Atheism is not faith-based, it is evidence-based, clearly.

The validity of God isn’t proven by popular opinion.

Regarding your examination of belief, faith and trust are not the same concepts. You’re blurring the lines between the two ideas to support your mistaken reasoning that one must have “faith” in everything, which is untrue. Of course, your implication here is that some “faith-requirement” to reasoning validates the concept of God, which is ridiculous. There is no faith requirement to reason. Facts are not subject to faith. Facts are facts.

Saleem, “subjective evidence” is preposterous nonsense, a classic oxymoron, and an imaginary idea. Evidence, by it’s nature, is objective. “Subjective evidence” is like saying “objective subjectivity”. Just nonsense, literally. Does 2+2=5 when you need it to?

Moreover, have you considered that your personal “subjective evidence” is also known as your imagination?

In closing, you are not alone with your mystical experiences. They’re not special. Atheists have them all the time, we just have the courage to call them what they are. They are almost always our emotions, desires and biases at work. When Atheists can’t explain something, they just say “I don’t know”. They never say, “it’s God”.

Why? Because throughout human history, the real answer never turns out to be God. Never. It also never turns out to be Godzilla.

Saleem, why not pour your efforts into a philosophy based on reality? Why spend so much time pondering mystical places, beings and states of mind conjured-up by ignorant men in the Iron Age?

I understand your position, and it is not enlightened, special or parent-like. Assuming God exists is just your convenient false premise. You’re simply using the circular logic that all theists use to cling to pre-existing belief systems that they can’t, for emotional reasons, abandon, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You assume God exists, because you have been taught so since a young age by authority figures, like YOUR parents. Every argument of yours presupposes that he is there, but you have no evidence to lean on, only “feelings”.

Evidence is required for truth. Evidence itself is never subjective, it is objective and actual. All ideas and feelings do not qualify as evidence, no matter how desperately we want them to in order to support the existing and comfortable beliefs we have been taught since childhood.

Atheism is obviously not faith-based in any way, it is evidence-based, and by common, conversational definition it is simply the refusal to deny obvious truths (i.e. “God is gone” does not mean he used to be there). Atheism is nothing like theism, and suggesting it is isn’t an enlightened unique perspective, it’s just common cliche.

“God Dies” does not mean God lives, Saleem, no matter how badly you want it to. This essay is not about Frances believing in God.

I disagree with you, and you do not hold a position of greater understanding to inform me otherwise.