What has atheist done in opposition to or in observing what evidence that has been presented that the atheist would not have done if there was no "issue" of a God thingie? (which up to this point: testimony, written text, psychological meme verfication, and historical line or history path evidence)
So to say, no God has ever existed, no God has ever been purposed, no God has ever been considered to debate. "Atheist" would have no such title, so considering yourself in opposition to God. Now, would the debating, researching, arguing, discussion etc. have made you a more engaged or intellectual of a person because you have done such things? I would understand some Atheist do not "engage" nor research they just accept or say no god exist because nothing god has slapoed the poo out if them. But for those that have actively engaged, has the engaging, researching curiosity etc. given reason and motive to do more or learn more than if a God "issue" has ever existed?
the problem with believing in something that does not esists is you are not living in the real world. Just another lie that the powerful use to control the poor. What religion treats women as equal? Non they treat them as reproduction machines to be a mans slave!
No. If there were no god to examine, then the issues and questions atheists/agnostics examine would still be there.
For example, "where do we come from" or "where are we going" can be addressed by examining the god answer vs. science answer or JUST the science answer.
Clearly many people, in their exploration of theology, have arrived at answers or questions they would not have normally arrived at. But I would not attribute that to "god" but just the endless curiosity that human beings have about all things and how starting to think about one topic often leads you to think about many other related, and unrelated, topics.
I oppose God. I think God sucks. He expects us to praise him all day, every day? For what?!? He exists, all right, in some people's minds. Therefore, he exists! He builds churches and writes books and sings his own praises, and sends young men off to war, and to be fair, creates soup kitchens and organizes AA meetings. But overall, way to full of himself. Takes on all kinds of shapes and sizes, contradicts himself endlessly, can't make up his mind about ANYTHING. Even supports some sports teams, and even individual athletes, over others. I fail to see WHAT, exactly, he does to make himself useful.
You’re question(s) and responses are both incoherent. And you resort to the age old circular argument - you use the writings (in your case, the bible) that promulgate god as the proof of his existence. You can’t logically do that - an independent, external, and verifiable verification of those writings must also exist. There is no such.
For example, I could say that I believe that Sauron is the master of all. I’ve read ‘The Lord Of The Rings’, and it says so in those books. Therefore it must be true. This is patently and obviously ridiculous, bit it’s an identical argument to yours.
I'm a firm believer that after we die, we become recycled energy.
I mean, what were we before evolving into humans?
I channel my deceased loved ones for strength and guidance. I am using their energy to give me strength. (At least, that's what I believe.) Our loved ones mission is not done and neither will ours when we think we're gone. So in essence, they are like "gods" to me because I still need them.
Again, that's MY belief.
This is why, like Sam Harris, I prefer the word "skeptic". We do not need a special word for people who are not convinced that astrology is useful. Religion has zero demonstrative or expository power. NONE of our life saving advances in technology or medicine has EVER been BECAUSE of religion. Yes some great scientists came from the ranks of the religious (when almost everyone was i.e. before science directly contradicted these outdated myths. Religion does not inform our morality even if we try for it to. It cannot inform us about ancient history, biology, or cosmology. The bible is almost 100% a waste of time and all anyone needs to do to make me lose respect for their intelectual judgement in such matters is to quote a bible verse as is it weree to be relevant or believed!
You said: "So to say, no God has ever existed, no God has ever been purposed, no God has ever been considered to debate. "Atheist" would have no such title, so considering yourself in opposition to God."
You are conflating belief with proof/evidence/fact to justify the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic" only having validity because of that conflation. It's not in opposition of "God". It's in opposition of the belief and claim that there is or was a "God". You can't be in opposition of something that hasn't been proven to exist. It's opposition to the claim or belief.
I'm probably going to regret this but I've finished work for the week and am in a phenomenally good mood
So the answer is - That which does not exist, at least to me, cannot help or hinder.
Not sure I fully understand but if the belief in god never happened then there would be no atheists. Thus I and many others could have used our thinking powers on other issues. The logical reasoning person will be that regardless. This skill set will just be used elsewhere.