Atheists are Deep Believers

Once again I thank Con for the inputs. [Pro: 'One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God'] [Con: This is clearly false. The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist. The first makes no claims about reality; the second specifically denies that something exists.] There can be only two positions out of which one may be the absolute truth regarding the existence of God. Statement 1> God Exists Statement2> God Does Not Exist. Statement 1 and Statement 2 are mutually contradicting and only one out them can be true. At no instance, both the mutually contradicting positions pertaining to the existence of something can be true. One can't believe Statement 1 to be true without believing statement 2 as false and vice versa. Theist > Believes in the Existence of God and Denies the Non Existence of God (Believe Statement 1 as True and Statement 2 as False) Atheist> Denies the existence of God and Believe in the Non Existence of God (Believe Statement 2 as True and Statement 1 as False) Truth: http://www.debate.org... [>>>>> The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist<<<<< ] In the context of existence of God, if this does not equate, the stator is not certain about what He denies and what He believes. One having this stand can't be an Atheist, but an Agnostic. "My statement referred to Atheists only" [Pro: 'God by definition itself is a supreme being with infinite intelligence and the Creator of the Universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence'] [Con: A God with properties such as omni-benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience leaves us to expect certain aspects of our world to be in certain ways. For instance, everyone who could possibly come to believe in God would do so, since an omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to, and would want as many people as possible to join him in heaven (to go by the Christian story). We can infer, then, that such a being probably does not exist due to the vast amounts of unbelief in the world.] I hope the answer for this is already there in the previous post and which is quoted above. Here I think con is going away from the topic of discussion, which is not the attributes of God. Vast amount of disbelief does not help one to conclude the non existence of God. Moreover I think by the usage ‘vast' my friend has just referred the con circle alone. The percentage of atheists is just 2-3 of the world population. Theism/Atheism Statistics: http://www.adherents.com... [Con: We study and build knowledge, infer facts based on observational evidence and learn about the universe we are in all the time with our 'relative and subjective' mind. Why should this not further apply to an infinite God? Con has agreed that we learn and infer with the relative and subjective mind. If the mind is relative, the understanding and perception of concepts/ideas will vary with individuals and the other variable associated with the study and observation. How will we conclude that an idea inferred by a relative mind is absolutely true? ] Absolute: http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy) Non Existence/Existence of God and the Universe is an absolute truth. On can never say that it depends upon how you observe or the objects of your reference. Absolutes are unconditional reality and exist irrespective of how you understand it. Your understanding is just your knowledge of the absolute, resultant of your perception. [Pro: 'There are Hundreds of arguments for and against the existence of God and none of them proves or disproves with evidence convincing to the other'] [Con: Pro concedes the debate by pointing out that the atheists have evidence for their position, albeit evidence not accepted by theists. By conceding that atheists have evidence for their position, Pro accepts that atheism is not a faith position. ] [Post 1 Con: Argumentation such as inconsistent properties of God, the argument from evil, the argument from non-belief, the argument from inconsistent revelations and so on] Con has mistaken here. What are referred here are mere arguments, NOT EVIDENCES. Both in the presence or absence of evidence any one who identifies himself with a worldview confirms his identity on the basis off their faith in the presence or absence of evidence pertaining to His or the opposing worldview. Con is not different as there absolutely exist no evidence to prove the non existence of God and Con is and ardent believer of Atheism and he has taken it up by Faith. Arguments are done to support once stand, which one has already chosen to stick to, by Faith. A real Truth Seeker converts arguments to discussions……. I thank Kinesis for taking part in this discussion….. http://www.biola.edu... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.simpletoremember.com...