Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?

 

[Boss]

Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

 

[Mertex]

Indeed he does! And anyone who wants to find Him will.

 

[newpolitics]

Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.

 

[Boss]

Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't get to "god exists." Not by a long shot.

I'm following logic, and I've shown where you are not. You demand and expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity, which is illogical. You claim humans suffer from 70k years of mass delusion, again.. illogical. You claim spiritual belief is to explain things that have been explained for hundreds of years, illogical. You defy the very principles of physical science you claim to believe in, again... ILLOGICAL!

Every time you have dared to touch on the OP argument, you've proven to be an illogical twit, yet you are here calling me the illogical one. For the most part, you've steered away from debate on the subject, in favor of distracting and derailing the topic or personally attacking me with ridicule, or boasting about how you've somehow "won" the debate that you've not really participated in. At least, not with anything logical.

Now, you are tenacious, I've got to give you that. You obviously have a high regard for your opinion, but unfortunately, your opinion doesn't defeat the argument.

 

[newpolitics]

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't get to "god exists." Not by a long shot.

I'm following logic, and I've shown where you are not. You demand and expect physical evidence of a spiritual entity, which is illogical. You claim humans suffer from 70k years of mass delusion, again.. illogical. You claim spiritual belief is to explain things that have been explained for hundreds of years, illogical. You defy the very principles of physical science you claim to believe in, again... ILLOGICAL!

Every time you have dared to touch on the OP argument, you've proven to be an illogical twit, yet you are here calling me the illogical one. For the most part, you've steered away from debate on the subject, in favor of distracting and derailing the topic or personally attacking me with ridicule, or boasting about how you've somehow "won" the debate that you've not really participated in. At least, not with anything logical.

Now, you are tenacious, I've got to give you that. You obviously have a high regard for your opinion, but unfortunately, your opinion doesn't defeat the argument.

I guess its hard to convince the deluded of their delusion, and so it is with you. Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want, but your attempt to convince anyone else with this pseudo-argument fails heroically. Please, don't talk about logic as if you've any idea of what it means.

Yes, humans are suffering from a "mass delusion" as a need to answer unanswerable questions. The reason people are still religious, although the number is decreasing, is because of the ability for people to put god into whatever gaps science hasn't yet answered. Also, it is evolved into us to look for the spiritual, as a sort of vestigial belief pattern, as well as there being tremendous social pressure to believe in god in religious communities, from friends and family. People trust atheists the least of any demographic, a priori, which confirms it being an evolved trait that performed a cohesive function, but is now incongruent in our modern world, and will be phased out. No, Occams Razor doesn't say that god must exist. This is a perversion of Occam's Razor and logic in general. This isn't my opinion. This is logic, as well as the definition of Occam's Razor. What you are doing is the equivalent of adding two and two and getting five. Your premises simply don't add up.

I have addresses the OP directly, only to be frustrated by your inability to grasp the logical, and your continual insistence that you are right simply because it makes sense to you.

 

[G.T.]

(MY RESPONSES IN BOLD AND PARENTHESIS)

We often hear the God-haters chortle... you don't have definitive proof that god exists, therefore, it must be a fallacy.(not that it must be a fallacy, only that it's not proven. You're putting words in people's mouths as the start of a thesis. weak.) I have often been puzzled by this argument, because it seems to indicate a complete lack of basic comprehension and logic(no, the absence of proof leading to a lack of belief is completely logical. weak). Many people certainly DO have definitive proof that god exists(not a single person does, this is an assertion with no backbone. weak. that is why the majority of believers in "god," i.e. Christians, require FAITH. FAITH is the ABSENCE OF PROOF, YET BELIEF. weak.), that's why they believe in god. You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem. (no, a person arguing publicly to have proof of something then has the burden to back up their commentary. that's how debate works. no one has provided spiritual proof of a god, and before they even could they'd need to obviously define spiritual, define god. this is how logic works. weak.)

You see, we can't expect a spiritual entity to exist in the physical sense, then it would be a physical entity. By it's very nature, God doesn't have to physically exist to exist as a spirit or energy(energy is a physical property. "spirit" is an abstract, unproven entity). So the demands for physical proof of a spiritual entity are devoid of logic to begin with(so is pretending a spiritual entity exists because people say so, with no proof whatsoever except them all saying so. that is devoid of logic, as well). Does a thought exist(actually, you can map the brain's function throughout a thought. theyre also in the process of being able to pull a visual memory out of the brain. catch up on your research, you're wrong here)? You can't see it, there is no physical proof of it's existence, but does it not still exist(you can see it, there is physical proof of its existence, and theyre in the middle of proving it definitively. look it up)? How about an inspiration? How about a dream? How about love? (love is an emotion, it triggers a physical reaction. everyone knows that. dreams are what the brain goes through when it's defragging during sleep. inspiration is a thought process.)

As you can see, the "existence" of something can be physical or nonphysical, or even spiritual(everything you said above was physical, for starters. all provable by hard science. "or even spiritual" is a leap you just freely took, with no logical backbone). So in order to evaluate the existence of something spiritual, we have to use spiritual evidence, since physical evidence doesn't logically apply. We don't demand spiritual evidence to prove the physical.... if you demonstrate how rain is caused with physical science, and someone says...well God tells me that rain is His tears... what would you say to that? It's backward, mouth-breathing and knuckle-dragging? Right? Well, that is someone applying spiritual evidence to the physical(umm, saying that rains is god's tears is not providing EVIDENCE, it's providing an ASSERTION. jesus fuck you're dumb), and rejecting physical evidence. Yes, it's kind of stupid, isn't it? Just as stupid as demanding physical evidence to support a spiritual entity, and rejecting spiritual evidence. (you still haven't shown this spiritual evidence you're talking about. You still don't even define what spiritual is. Or, what god is. this sounds like a conversation a schitzo would have with himself).

Now to the "definitive proof" part. Since we have now determined that Spiritual evidence is what is needed to prove God's existence(HAHAHAHAHAHA), we take you back 70,000 years or so, to the ancient people of Lake Mungo, one of the oldest human civilizations ever discovered. There, they found evidence of ritual burial using red ochre in ceremony(SO WHAT?). This is important because it signifies presence of spirituality (NO IT SIGNIFIES THE PRESENCE OF A BELIEF IN SPIRITUALITY. NOT THE PRESENCE OF SPIRITUALITY. YOU'RE REALLY FAST AND LOOSE WITH CALLING THINGS EVIDENCE, HOLY SHIT). We can trace this human connection with spirituality all through mankind's history to present day religions. Mankind has always been spiritually connected to something greater than self (mankind has always believed in spirituality. That doesn't mean it exists. Just like billions of children believing in santa doesn't mean he exists, and billions of people believing THEIR God, is THE ONLY GOD (monotheism), MEANS THAT BILLIONS OF OTHER MONOTHEISTS ARE NECESSARILY WRONG ABOUT THEIR BELIEF! NUMBSKULL, WHAT THIS MEANS IS, IS THAT BELIEF IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING AND BELIEF BY BILLIONS CAN BE SHOWN TO BE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG). Since our very origins.

Perhaps this is where we can interject some relative physical science, from none other than the father of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin. In his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin points out that behavioral traits which are inherent in a species, exist for some fundamental reason pertaining to the advancement of the species, otherwise they are discarded over time through natural selection(YOU DONT KNOW DARWIN'S THEORY. DO YOU HAVE AN APENDIX, RETARD?). No species of animal we have ever studied, just does something inherently, with no fundamental reason(SPIRITUAL BELIEF HAS A REASON: TO QUELL FEAR). Salmon swim upstream for a reason. Dogs wag their tails for a reason.(WE HAVE AN APENDIX FOR NO REASON. WE HAVE PHOBIAS FOR NO REASON. THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT, AND YOU STILL SHOW A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING FOR DARWIN) We may not understand the reason, but Darwin tells us, there has to be one.

So there you have it, in just a few short paragraphs. Definitive proof that God exists!(YOU DONT KNOW WHAT DEFINITIVE MEANS. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT GOD MEANS, EITHER)

The reason your thread lasts so long is because the persons arguing it suspend disbelief in how someone so simple minded could carry on for this many pages after being debunked so succinctly and thoroughly, and they hang onto hope that your crazy stupid brain would come around. It won't, you're an idiot. Your OP has more holes in it than - I don't know I cant even think of an analogy for that many holes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You refuse to accept spiritual evidence. You will do anything to avoid acknowledgement, because you hate religious people.

There is NO SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE whatsoever, period! Furthermore your incessant LYING about others rationally refusing to accept something that does not exist only makes you the one who is displaying hatred towards those who don't share your particular religious beliefs.

Spirituality is just a state of mind. Some people have more experience than others when it comes to reaching this state. Meditation is one way to do it, another is prayer and a third is to recite a mantra but the common purpose is to zone out into a state where the mind is divorced from everyday reality and free to indulge in fantasy. You are attempting to claim that this state of mind is the equivalent of "evidence". In a court of law a "state of mind" can be used as "motive" for committing a crime but no one is ever convicted on "motive" alone. There must be other substantial evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. In your instance there is no doubt whatsoever that you are playing fast and loose with a "state of mind" and attempting to convince a jury that this constitutes actual "evidence". Furthermore you are deceitfully alleging that everyone who treats your premise with the skepticism that it justly deserves is "guilty" of hating "religious people". You have no actual "evidence" to prove that spurious allegation either.

This entire thread has been little more than an exercise for you to use your own personal religious beliefs as a club to beat those who don't share them. That is not the kind of religion that any sane and rational person would want to join.

So you are going to cling to 70,000 years of "mass delusion" to explain human spiritual connection? Yes, there IS spiritual evidence,

"70,000 years" of a state of mind does NOT constitute ""Definitive Proof" for the existence of your "God".

and you refuse to EVER acknowledge it. We can continue this thread for another 20 pages, and you will STILL not acknowledge it. My thread is NEVER going to change your mind, and I fully understood this when I posted it.

Your own posts contradict that allegation.

I have stated, at least a dozen time in the thread, that I am not religious, I have no religious beliefs, I am pretty much an Atheist

Another easily debunked canard of yours. Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God". Whereas YOU are claiming that there is "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists". This means that you are now lying about being an Atheist in order to hide your religious beliefs.

when it comes to organized religion, yet here you are again, trying to accuse me of forcing my religious beliefs on others. Honestly, how can you have a reasonable debate with people who are this dishonest?

Ironic!

What you and others continue to prove, by insinuating religion, is that you are angry at religion and religious people. You are so spitting mad at them, that any time someone even dares to mention "spirituality" you emotively go into attack mode.

Ironic!

You've proven this over and over in the thread. It's sad that you are letting your anger and rage for religion, get in the way of understanding human spirituality.

Ironic!

Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.

 

[Boss]

I guess its hard to convince the deluded of their delusion, and so it is with you.

It's hard to convince me the most intelligent species of all has suffered from mass delusion for 70k years, when this hasn't happened with any other species or living thing, even the simplest life forms aren't duped into meaningless behavior.

The reason people are still religious, although the number is decreasing, is because of the ability for people to put god into whatever gaps science hasn't yet answered.

The number of spiritual people is not declining, it remains about 95%. You also need to give me some examples of these things that are so unexplained by science that man has to turn to a "delusion" to explain them.

Also, it is evolved into us to look for the spiritual, as a sort of vestigial belief pattern, as well as there being tremendous social pressure to believe in god in religious communities, from friends and family. People trust atheists the least of any demographic, a priori, which confirms it being an evolved trait that performed a cohesive function, but is now incongruent in our modern world, and will be phased out.

These are unfounded opinions, you've offered not a thing to support them. You also haven't explained WHY people need a vestigial belief system. It certainly wasn't social pressure when millions and millions of spiritual people were killed for their beliefs or for refusing to abandon them. In fact, every attempt in world history, to stamp out spiritual belief, has failed... so the diametric opposite of what you claim, is the truth. IN SPITE of social pressure, people remained devoutly spiritual.

No, Occams Razor doesn't say that god must exist.

I have never claimed it did. Time and time again, you continue to completely misinterpret what is said. Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem, or you are mentally retarded. Occams doesn't proclaim things fact. It merely states, the simplest explanations are most logical, and evaluations should start there, until you have something with greater explanatory power, which you have failed to present in this case.

I have addresses the OP directly, only to be frustrated by your inability to grasp the logical, and your continual insistence that you are right simply because it makes sense to you.

No, you have repeatedly misquoted and misinterpreted things I have said. You've addressed the OP with your unfounded opinion and ridicule. You've tried to derail the topic, change the subject and trap me into contradictions. So far, nothing has worked.

 

[Boss]

Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".

Incorrect. They don't believe in "theistic" concepts of god. Many Atheists do accept the possibility of spiritual nature. Only 5% of the population identify as Nihilist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Again you are putting limits on nature that don't exist. Take a virus as an example. No virus can reproduce itself. The virus gets a host to reproduce it. So obviously the host reproduces an organism that is not its own kind.

You are saying there are no limits on nature which easily can be observed.

No, obviously, I said YOUR limits on nature are not real.

Explain ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here's a couple of questions that may force a definition out of you: How do you interact with this spiritual power? What effect does this have on your life?

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

 

[Hollie]

We're over 700 posts now, and I am still not going to define a god so you can attack it. I have explained what "god" means in my argument, and you have not refuted anything in my argument. If you'd like to attempt that soon, it would be nice.

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming “he” is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, “Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"

 

[Boss]

What would be nice, is if you learned something about logic, and then used it. Because right now, you are seriously missing the mark. Nowhere in this thread is a proof for anything. Quite literally. You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but don't claim definitive proof for god and then let us down with such a poorly constructed argument. Try putting your argument in syllogistic form, and see how far you get. Then you will realize you can't deductively get to "god exists" using your premises. Not by a long shot.

I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).

Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.

You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming “he” is beyond our power to understand.

Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, “Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"

Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.

You rejected my argument on the basis that a spiritual entity doesn't provide physical proof. The fallaciousness is you insisting on illogical evidence that never can exist. If spiritual entities provided physical proof, they would be physical entities, defined by the existence of physical proof. In order to examine the possibility of a spiritual god, you have to examine spiritual evidence, not physical. But you reject spiritual evidence as nonsense, so god can never be proven to you, nor are you capable of examining the possibility.

Physical science and the scientific method, NEVER draw conclusions. It is all probability and prediction, based on observation and testability. Nothing is definitive with science, it always leaves the door of possibility open. Understanding this, what if you were attempting to explain something science is relatively certain about, to someone who totally rejects science? Every theory you present, is met with... "god didn't say it, so it must not be true!" Repeatedly, you show the physical evidence, the scientific data and formulas, the details of scientific examination, and it is consistently rejected by someone who refuses to accept physical science, and insists that "god did it!" Is there ANY way to get through to such a person? Will you EVER convince them, if they won't accept physical science?

The same exact problem applies to you in this debate. You refuse to accept spiritual evidence and cling to physical science. Your mind is closed to any other possibility. I presented an argument which contains both spiritual and physical evidence, but you reject the spiritual evidence, and offer casual excuses to explain away the physical evidence. If physical science were definitive and could definitively prove spiritual entities do not exist, I would accept your argument, but that's not the case.

 

[Bezukhov]

Actually Boss, there was a god. But that was a long time ago. Me and my boys took care of it We wrote a song to commemorate the event:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTf5GdlJONM]Steely Dan 2003-Godwhacker - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Boss]

Only religious people get angry when the existence of their "God" is debunked with reason and logic which is what you are doing right now. That you have to project your anger and hatred onto those who are upholding their own freedom from religion rights just exposes how deeply religious you actually are.

You've not debunked anything with reason or logic. You've attempted to apply an illogical criteria by demanding physical proof of something that is not physical in nature. This is the only "reason" you have presented for rejecting the possibility. Even the principles of the scientific method are ignored by you. Science has not drawn the conclusion that a spiritual realm doesn't or can't exist, or for that matter, can't ever be proven by physical evidence. Science itself, remains open to the possibility of things we don't yet know, but you reject any possibility of spirituality. You are defying your own first-principles of science in doing so, and it doesn't even seem to dawn on you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".

Incorrect. They don't believe in "theistic" concepts of god.

Whom should we believe regarding the definition of an Atheist? Your self serving lies or Merriam-Webster?

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Merriam-Webster has far more credibility than your pathetic lies when it comes to the indisputable facts.

Many Atheists do accept the possibility of spiritual nature. Only 5% of the population identify as Nihilist.

Completely irrelevant. Spirituality is a STATE OF MIND and does NOT remotely resemble "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".

 

[Boss]

Genuine Atheists don't believe in the existence of any "God".

Incorrect. They don't believe in "theistic" concepts of god.

Whom should we believe regarding the definition of an Atheist? Your self serving lies or Merriam-Webster?

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATHEIST

: one who believes that there is no deity

Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Merriam-Webster has far more credibility than your pathetic lies when it comes to the indisputable facts.

Many Atheists do accept the possibility of spiritual nature. Only 5% of the population identify as Nihilist.

Completely irrelevant. Spirituality is a STATE OF MIND and does NOT remotely resemble "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".

A "deity" is a theistic concept of god.

Show me one place in this entire thread, where I have claimed god was a "deity" and I will accept your accusation and apologize publicly. If you can't, I will expect a public apology from you, for repeatedly making this false accusation.

You see, this is why you and others are so determined to lock me into a definition of god. You can then attack whatever incarnation I present, thus refuting my argument. The fact that I will not allow this, has you frustrated to the point of outright lying.

 

[newpolitics]

"In East Asia, atheists and the irreligious are the majority. Outside of East Asia and some European countries atheist or non-believer percentages are typically in the single digits. The number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. Scientists and in particular eminent scientists are mostly atheists, perhaps the only demographic in the West in which this occurs...

"... At one time all societies everywhere presumably believed in gods or god until the advent of the classical philosophical systems in East Asia and Science in the West. Atheism was very slow in becoming an openly asserted system of non-belief in the West with little or nothing before the late 18th Century in terms of positively asserted unequivocal atheism. Although there have always been individuals who in fact were, or like Socrates were accused of being atheists, only in the late modern period has statistically sound information become available."

"...Galen writes "Many previously reported characteristics associated with religiosity are a function not of belief itself, but of strong convictions and group identification."

A 2012 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reports:


"The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.
In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).[9]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

 

[Derideo_Te]

Incorrect. They don't believe in "theistic" concepts of god.

Whom should we believe regarding the definition of an Atheist? Your self serving lies or Merriam-Webster?



Merriam-Webster has far more credibility than your pathetic lies when it comes to the indisputable facts.

Many Atheists do accept the possibility of spiritual nature. Only 5% of the population identify as Nihilist.

Completely irrelevant. Spirituality is a STATE OF MIND and does NOT remotely resemble "Definitive Proof that GOD Exists".

A "deity" is a theistic concept of god.

More semantic nonsense.

Deity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of DEITY

1
a : the rank or essential nature of a god : divinity
b capitalized : god 1, supreme being
2
: a god or goddess <the deities of ancient Greece>
3
: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful

Show me one place in this entire thread, where I have claimed god was a "deity" and I will accept your accusation and apologize publicly. If you can't, I will expect a public apology from you, for repeatedly making this false accusation.

Pathetic strawman deflection!

You see, this is why you and others are so determined to lock me into a definition of god. You can then attack whatever incarnation I present, thus refuting my argument. The fact that I will not allow this, has you frustrated to the point of outright lying.

Merriam-Webster is the one you are arguing with. That is who you should be providing a groveling apology to since you obviously lack the basic education necessary to understand the meaning of the terms that you are so loosely flinging around in this thread.