Post: #1

Thoughts??

Hopefully there will be more.

I am an Atheist

Post: #2

I've seen this place before, I think. A video I saw a couple years ago of an elderly Christian man surrounded and harassed by muslims, I'm pretty sure it was in the same area. The muslim in this debate seems a much different kind of fellow. Your debate instilled in me some respect for Ali, though I detest Islam.

I want to be able to compliment you in some way, but sadly I cannot give you that. I'm going to be critical here. And in so doing, I welcome from you all the criticism towards me that you can give. I hope you take this constructively.

There's something remarkable that you had reiterated throughout the debate, but said most explicitly at the 4-minute mark. You said "I'm a product of the universe. I am here right now; I don't ask the question of what happened before it all existed.". You said that you don't concern yourself with what is beyond nominal experience because it is not immediate to you. This is also something you said in a discussion you had with me. It isn't an argument. It is a lack of curiosity and a lack of conviction. If you have no interest in the topic, how are you qualified to be an atheist?

At the 8-minute mark, Ali points out that you are "jumping" to another topic. This is something you did with me as well. When we were talking about naturalism, you kept trying to argue against God rather than naturalism. I hope you take this constructively. If we can stay on topic in future discussions, that would be a boon.

At 9:30 you said quantum events happen from nothing. This is Lawrence Krauss's theory. If quantum mechanics is needed for something to come from "nothing", then the aforementioned "nothing" is actually something. Krauss only showed that matter can emerge from quantum processes, and that quantum energy fields would have to preexist. Quantum energy fields are a something, not a nothing.

For the rest of the debate afaik, you were fairly well behaved. Ali demonstrated a major theological flaw, where he alleges that Christians believe that Jesus required material sustenance before creating the universe. Christians do not believe this. Allah has misinformed muslims terribly with regard to Christian belief. If Allah was all-knowing, he would not have made such a damning mistake. So Ali may have unwittingly refuted Islam.

If you intend to confront Ali again, I have a couple tips for you. Firstly, converse in good faith with him. Secondly, go and study the talking points of the youtube channel Acts17Apologetics. They, and especially David Wood, are good at arguing against Islam. Also, if you go down this route, have some intellectual integrity, curiosity, and conviction. Truth is more important than preconceived notions. You were thoroughly defeated in this debate. If you have intellectual integrity, what you will do is develop objections to the points he made and counter-arguments of your own, then go talk to him again. And whatever your endeavors, may God be with you in them, my dude.

Post: #3

I only made a minute in, but something that shits me is when theists try to compare their irrational belief in the supernatural with an atheists belief system.

Not believing in gods, demigods, spirits or the supernatural in general IS NOT a fundamentalist belief system.

It is a rational, intelligent position to have - believe in things in proportion to the evidence to support them... gravity pretty solid evidence, religion none.

You don't have a blind, religious faith in gravity, nor is it a blind, religious faith in atheism.

No one would accuse anyone of being a devout religious faith in not believing in the Easter bunny.

After all mono-god religious are atheists to the thousands of other religions, and no one would consider that an "act of faith" in disbelief.

Religious faith is at the totally opposite end of the spectrum of rational, objective scientific logical reasoning (and a belief system based on it)

Post: #4

That is now how you debate with Muslims.

Muslim is right with claiming that atheism is a belief system as well - the belief that there is nothing. Agnostics are the ones who leave the option of open, atheism claim with certainty that there is no God, no force, no meaning of life etc. Thus it becomes a belief.

Next time debate him rather on certain points and logical or ethical errors in Islam - there are a ton of those.

Getting into a fight whether God exists or not is not going anywhere since neither of you can prove it. You may be able to attack the ethical basis of Allah who says that you should slay all unbelievers unless they pay the Jizya with submission. That would be an argument as to what kind of "God" that is.

Post: #5

(05-13-2017 03:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Agnostics are the ones who leave the option of open, atheism claim with certainty that there is no God, no force, no meaning of life etc. Thus it becomes a belief.

Are you Easter Bunny agnostic? Or do you have a blind, irrational faith that he doesn't exist?

I don't agree atheists "claim with certainty" there are no gods.

I am an atheist and I think all things are possible in proportion to the evidence and likelihood based on our observations of the universe.

So close to nil it's not even worth splitting a hair between agnostic and atheist.

You need faith to believe in the supernatural (in the absence of evidence) it just takes a rational intelligence to not believe in gods or supernatural things. No faith required.

Post: #6

Likelihood of God existing that behaves like Allah or like Old Testament God - I agree zero.

Likelihood of Easter Bunny existing - also zero.

Likelihood of being a supreme guiding force, a higher purpose, maybe a higher entity - that is a wholly different question because even the big bang raises different questions.

Don't try to mix the crazy with legitimate perceptions. It actually takes very little to become aware of a divine presence - every Godseeker manages that quite easily. But of course you can debate and mentally masturbate your whole life - while one month of deep contemplations would get you the proof you may need.

And finally - it does not matter to the divine hierarchy what you believe in. I hope that should be clear - whether you believe in Allah, a Christian god or a Buddhist one or in nothing - truth and God should be as absolute as gravity - does not bloody matter what you believe in. There must be an absolute truth beyond all religious understandings. Thus when there is a God, then IT simply does not care what atheists think of IT.

Even now I see in your reasonings the usual jump to leftist-marxist argumentations of Easter Bunnies and irrational thinking. How could a rational being think that a God exists? And this is not even a matter of faith to me, but simple logic - well for me there is also spiritual experiences and high-perception called intuition.

Post: #7

(05-13-2017 03:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Getting into a fight whether God exists or not is not going anywhere since neither of you can prove it.

The onus isn't on me to prove a negative. Someone may claim there's a toaster in orbit around Uranus, but the burden of proof is on them to prove it, not me to disprove.

There's a God? Prove it. I don't have to prove there isn't one.

Post: #8

(05-13-2017 05:12 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Don't try to mix the crazy with legitimate perceptions

Even now I see in your reasonings the usual jump to leftist-marxist argumentations of Easter Bunnies and irrational thinking.

I am pretty sure you consider a few hundred religions to be "crazy" and linked with "irrational thinking" but you must know deep down that the people that worship those gods think you are the crazy one.

An atheist thinks you are all crazy and irrational, we just disbelieve one more god than the lot of you. Not that hard to imagine for you, since there are thousands of gods you don't believe in, just like me. One more is not such a stretch...

If you were born in a village in Saudi Arabia, or ancient rome, you would believe in a completely different god, with as much passion and conviction as you do whatever god you worship now.

The reality is, that the god you believe in is really just a random result of the time, place and culture you happened to be born in. Think about that.

I know I am not going to change your mind, but I do want you to understand that there is a logical difference between someone who has worships a god and has "faith" (belief without evidence) and a rational, evidence based view of the universe (no belief without evidence).

Polar opposite way of thinking.

Post: #9

(05-13-2017 03:19 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  That is now how you debate with Muslims.

Muslim is right with claiming that atheism is a belief system as well - the belief that there is nothing. Agnostics are the ones who leave the option of open, atheism claim with certainty that there is no God, no force, no meaning of life etc. Thus it becomes a belief.

Next time debate him rather on certain points and logical or ethical errors in Islam - there are a ton of those.

Getting into a fight whether God exists or not is not going anywhere since neither of you can prove it. You may be able to attack the ethical basis of Allah who says that you should slay all unbelievers unless they pay the Jizya with submission. That would be an argument as to what kind of "God" that is.

I was originally a Muslim (raised as such) but not for long, I then considered myself agnostic before finally settling and becoming really comfortable as an Atheist.

My transition from Agnosticism to Atheism happened when I looked into history and realized the idea of God, specifically a Monotheistic type of God, was rooted in an extremely politically motivated form of religion.

I realized the concept or idea of God has no basis, therefore I do not reject the existence of God but the notion itself. As Brewdog stated, I am not required to prove a negative, my position is simply that I do not entertain the idea without any merit, and given such an idea initially arose due to political motivations (rather than observation) I do not consider it valid.

For me, the difference between Agnosticm and Atheism (or atleast my kind of Atheism) is that Agnostics consider the notion of God valid and worthy of discussion, whereas Atheists dont. An Agnostic may engage in a debate with you about the existence of a Unicorm on Mars, whereas I would not waste my time.

Post: #10

(05-12-2017 07:23 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  I've seen this place before, I think. A video I saw a couple years ago of an elderly Christian man surrounded and harassed by muslims, I'm pretty sure it was in the same area. The muslim in this debate seems a much different kind of fellow. Your debate instilled in me some respect for Ali, though I detest Islam.

I want to be able to compliment you in some way, but sadly I cannot give you that. I'm going to be critical here. And in so doing, I welcome from you all the criticism towards me that you can give. I hope you take this constructively.

There's something remarkable that you had reiterated throughout the debate, but said most explicitly at the 4-minute mark. You said "I'm a product of the universe. I am here right now; I don't ask the question of what happened before it all existed.". You said that you don't concern yourself with what is beyond nominal experience because it is not immediate to you. This is also something you said in a discussion you had with me. It isn't an argument. It is a lack of curiosity and a lack of conviction. If you have no interest in the topic, how are you qualified to be an atheist?

At the 8-minute mark, Ali points out that you are "jumping" to another topic. This is something you did with me as well. When we were talking about naturalism, you kept trying to argue against God rather than naturalism. I hope you take this constructively. If we can stay on topic in future discussions, that would be a boon.

At 9:30 you said quantum events happen from nothing. This is Lawrence Krauss's theory. If quantum mechanics is needed for something to come from "nothing", then the aforementioned "nothing" is actually something. Krauss only showed that matter can emerge from quantum processes, and that quantum energy fields would have to preexist. Quantum energy fields are a something, not a nothing.

For the rest of the debate afaik, you were fairly well behaved. Ali demonstrated a major theological flaw, where he alleges that Christians believe that Jesus required material sustenance before creating the universe. Christians do not believe this. Allah has misinformed muslims terribly with regard to Christian belief. If Allah was all-knowing, he would not have made such a damning mistake. So Ali may have unwittingly refuted Islam.

If you intend to confront Ali again, I have a couple tips for you. Firstly, converse in good faith with him. Secondly, go and study the talking points of the youtube channel Acts17Apologetics. They, and especially David Wood, are good at arguing against Islam. Also, if you go down this route, have some intellectual integrity, curiosity, and conviction. Truth is more important than preconceived notions. You were thoroughly defeated in this debate. If you have intellectual integrity, what you will do is develop objections to the points he made and counter-arguments of your own, then go talk to him again. And whatever your endeavors, may God be with you in them, my dude.

On the matter of Quantum fluctuations it can actually prove God's existence:

Post: #11

(05-13-2017 05:50 PM)kavi Wrote:  For me, the difference between Agnosticm and Atheism (or atleast my kind of Atheism) is that Agnostics consider the notion of God valid and worthy of discussion, whereas Atheists dont. An Agnostic may engage in a debate with you about the existence of a Unicorm on Mars, whereas I would not waste my time.

And here again you go with UNICORN ON MARS.

Unbeknownst to you - you have been poisoned with the mainstream atheism poison, that slides inevitably towards mainstream marxist SJW-memes like the Atheist Youtubers.

Why focus on the God issue at all with such a debate? You could focus on Mohammed taking a winged horse and flying to the moon - that is indeed a very very unrealistic story.

You could focus on the lack of ethics or the barbaric ethics of Islam, you could focus on the idiotic habits of marrying cousins (also backed up by the Quran), you could focus on Islam permeating sciences and art in Islam and thus holding it back in a backwards state.

Your pet-topic of existence of God uselessly takes up time and does not avail to anything. You could rather argue why Allah as the most high demands the subjugation of all unbelievers and why Allah loves the local desert tribe of Mohammed the most.

Seriously - debating Islam is like firing at the ground. You are only going to miss if you don't think there is a ground. But instead you fired in the air at the God existence issue, because that is what SJW-Atheists are priming their targets. So if you are smart, then beware or you end up like the Amazing Atheist who makes the exact same claims that mainstream journalists do - for example that as long as Jihadis don't kill as many people as die in car accidents - that we all should not be concerned about anything. Because they in their moronic mind-numbingly stupid false reasoning are moving towards hopeless nihilism or abject materialism. After a time they start to identify with utopia on Earth and voila - they are soon SJW marxists.

Post: #12

(05-13-2017 05:31 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  The onus isn't on me to prove a negative. Someone may claim there's a toaster in orbit around Uranus, but the burden of proof is on them to prove it, not me to disprove.

There's a God? Prove it. I don't have to prove there isn't one.

With Dr. Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument, we are equipped with the knowledge that, on an ontological level, the possibility of God's existence necessitates that God exists. So in order to argue that God does not exist, you have to argue that it is ontologically impossible that God should exist. Arguing for the impossibility of something is an affirmative undertaking, not a negative. So yes, the onus is on you.

Post: #13

It's always amusing to me that atheists like to present themselves as superior rational beings surrounded by a bunch of illogical nutcases, probably influenced by the fact that a lot of the foremost figures in the atheist sphere are quite an obnoxious bunch (Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais, etc..).

Atheism is in my opinion a rather childish worldview, nothing more than a rebellion against increasingly declining religious stricture. It is an extension of the same mentality that makes a girl with strict parents go nuts and sleep with 20 guys the moment she gets away from her family as a big 'fuck you' to them.

It is no coincidence to me that the most hardcore atheists that I have known were raised in very religious families. The aggressive and annoying way that they had to attack everyone who had a different worldview was nothing more than an attack against a projection of their pasts, a constant need to justify their decision to walk away from the beliefs imposed upon them by their families.

I can empathize with them to a certain degree, as I am also very much of the belief that most of the major religions have lost the plot when it comes to spirituality, favoring empty ritual and dogmaticism over the essential truths that all religion across the world can be traced back to. Unfortunately when transitioning away from superficial religion they have merely swung to the opposite end of the spectrum, rather than finding the truth in between.

The fact of the matter is that atheism can only survive through ignorance of reality, and by hamstering away events that conflict with their 'logical', 'scientific' worldview. No joke: I have literally witnessed an atheist friend of mine (raised in a Muslim family) telling me a personal account of him being fucked with by some invisible force in a place which was known for being haunted in his community (for which he mocked people for being overly superstitious prior to the event), only for him to end the story with 'maybe it was all just my imagination', or something similar to that. Maybe I will ask him to tell me the story again and I will post it up somewhere, it was quite a fascinating story actually.

Once you have been in this world for long enough, life will eventually confront you with occurrences and events that cannot ever fit with the 'map' of reality imposed by atheism. Once this occurs, the choices that remain are to update your flawed worldview, or to continue in a belief system (yes, that is what atheism ultimately comes down to) that is a denial of reality.

I would encourage anyone considering themselves atheists to stop by this thread and read through some of the posts as some food for thought. Maybe it will trigger memories of certain events in your life that are along the lines of what I have described in the paragraph above, or maybe it will simply allow you to throw down the barriers that you have erected around your mind, and experience life with a more open, nonjudgemental mindset (in my opinion the most important starting point), or maybe you will simply think that everyone in this thread is lying (and if you do, fair enough, believe what you will). But do stop by.

Check it out:

Experiences that made you question the nature of reality

Post: #14

(05-14-2017 03:28 AM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 05:31 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  The onus isn't on me to prove a negative. Someone may claim there's a toaster in orbit around Uranus, but the burden of proof is on them to prove it, not me to disprove.

There's a God? Prove it. I don't have to prove there isn't one.

With Dr. Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument, we are equipped with the knowledge that, on an ontological level, the possibility of God's existence necessitates that God exists. So in order to argue that God does not exist, you have to argue that it is ontologically impossible that God should exist. Arguing for the impossibility of something is an affirmative undertaking, not a negative. So yes, the onus is on you.

From what I've seen, atheists won't say with 100% certainty that there is no God. That's too much akin to faith. Blindly "knowing" something just because your heart wants it.

Here's something the religious never wish to discuss because there is no rational argument to support it. The concept of Infinite Regression. The religious argue that there must be a God because the universe is way too complex to not have a designer. Yet where did that designer originate? A designer complex enough to create a complex universe would also need an equally complex designer to create Him. And then a Creator before that Creator. Yet when a small child asks his parents, "Where did God come from?" the answer is always, "We're not allowed to ask this. That's blasphemy. God just always existed and always will." What a convenient answer to just proclaim, "I don't have to ponder that question. I just KNOW. I have FAITH."

I think there's a very likely chance that we're all living in the Matrix. I think God is us, and we are just living in The Sims 60.

Post: #15

(05-14-2017 04:38 AM)thebassist Wrote:  Atheism is in my opinion a rather childish worldview, nothing more than a rebellion against increasingly declining religious stricture.

It is no coincidence to me that the most hardcore atheists that I have known were raised in very religious families.

I laughed out loud. "Childish worldview"

Imagine a bunch of grown ups around you vehemently tried to convince you that the easter bunny was real, and then called you childish for not going along with it!

And nearly all religious people were "raised" (aka brainwashed) by a religious upbringing, culture and parents.

Your religion is really just a random event, you being born at a certain time and place and within a culture. You would believe in what ever god was popular at that time and place. Its so obviously made up I can't believe we are having this conversation!

If it was 8000 years ago, you'd be trying to convince me of some made up pagan god with equal fervor.

Post: #16

(05-14-2017 02:05 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  Here's something the religious never wish to discuss because there is no rational argument to support it.

This is a knee-slapper. I've gone and discussed this very thing too many times. Your argument hinges upon the notion that the creator is itself contingent. But for the creator to qualify as the ultimate creator, it must be necessary, not contingent, and therefore by definition uncaused and without beginning. Your objection holds no water, and for this reason no serious academic entertains it anymore. Please try harder. Kavi is doing an excellent job in the other thread, forming challenging counterarguments against mine. Be like Kavi. Low-hanging fruit is no fun for me.

Post: #17

Pardon the interjection, RatInTheWoods, but thebassist stated earlier that he thinks the religions which exist today are false. When you say "Your religion...", you are referring to a non-thing. Bassist is not defending a particular religion, but only the notion that a God exists. You ought to hurl this kind of verbal abuse at me rather than at him, because I do defend a particular religion.

Post: #18

(05-14-2017 08:31 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Pardon the interjection, RatInTheWoods, but thebassist stated earlier that he thinks the religions which exist today are false. When you say "Your religion...", you are referring to a non-thing. Bassist is not defending a particular religion, but only the notion that a God exists. You ought to hurl this kind of verbal abuse at me rather than at him, because I do defend a particular religion.

I wish I understood what you were saying half the time Gooz :-)
Contingent notional non things and all.

Holding a notion that a god (or many) exists is a religion. His belief in the supernatural, whatever shape that takes, is his religion.

We all think a large number of gods/religions are false. (surely you don't subscribe to the spaghetti monster?)

Atheists just go one god more.

Post: #19

(05-14-2017 09:00 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 08:31 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Pardon the interjection, RatInTheWoods, but thebassist stated earlier that he thinks the religions which exist today are false. When you say "Your religion...", you are referring to a non-thing. Bassist is not defending a particular religion, but only the notion that a God exists. You ought to hurl this kind of verbal abuse at me rather than at him, because I do defend a particular religion.

I wish I understood what you were saying half the time Gooz :-)
Contingent notional non things and all.

Holding a notion that a god (or many) exists is a religion. His belief in the supernatural, whatever shape that takes, is his religion.

We all think a large number of gods/religions are false. (surely you don't subscribe to the spaghetti monster?)

Atheists just go one god more.

Well, my dude, I am open to any questions you have. If something is unclear, do ask for clarification. If more people understand my arguments, more people can attempt to counter-argue. I want all the counter-arguments I can get, so that I can come to the most informed conclusions that I can.

Saying that you only believe in one less god than I do is an easy-going trivialization of the distinction between theism and atheism, but it's neither that simple nor that trivial. If there exists no deity whatsoever, that has tremendous impacts on the nature of being, on ethics, on meaning, on purpose, on epistemology, on history. The differences in what is implied by theism and atheism are profound, and that is why it is so important, to me at least, to settle this question with maximum certainty.

If you need me to clarify anything on modality, contingency, necessity, or what have you… If you need any definitions fleshed out, feel free to ask me in this other thread.

Post: #20

(05-14-2017 08:20 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 02:05 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  Here's something the religious never wish to discuss because there is no rational argument to support it.

This is a knee-slapper. I've gone and discussed this very thing too many times. Your argument hinges upon the notion that the creator is itself contingent. But for the creator to qualify as the ultimate creator, it must be necessary, not contingent, and therefore by definition uncaused and without beginning. Your objection holds no water, and for this reason no serious academic entertains it anymore. Please try harder. Kavi is doing an excellent job in the other thread, forming challenging counterarguments against mine. Be like Kavi. Low-hanging fruit is no fun for me.

Do you have your thesaurus open while typing this? You seem as if you want everyone to think you're very bright. Yet when one tries really hard to sound smart, it's evident.

I'm not the one that believes in a magic man in the sky. If you want to believe in fairies, then by all means go for it. But don't try to pass me off as an ignoramus because of my lack of stupidity or superstition.

Post: #21

(05-12-2017 05:30 AM)kavi Wrote:  Thoughts??

Hopefully there will be more.

I am an Atheist

Is it you in the video?

Cause you are losing the argument.

The problem lies in atheism itself. As far as we have not answered every possible questions there will always be a space for superstition.

In my opinion neither atheist nor a religious fanatic are right. Truth is in the middle. There are a lot of things that have not been explained. There is definitely something out there. And there is definitely a programmed function in humans to believe in highest being.

However religion nothing to do with actual God. God is universe, God is everything. Religion is an organisation to control people, support political agenda and make money.

Smart people say you should never argue about politics or religion, but it is just so much fun.

The atheist will most of the times lose argument with a religious fanatic. Simple reason. Religious person spends hours and hours every day thinking about this stuff, and talking about it. Non religious person does not. So one is better prepared.

Post: #22

(05-14-2017 10:30 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  Do you have your thesaurus open while typing this? You seem as if you want everyone to think you're very bright. Yet when one tries really hard to sound smart, it's evident.

I don't even speak or write in high-brow language. What's the issue?

"I'm not the one that believes in a magic man in the sky."
Neither am I.

"If you want to believe in fairies, then by all means go for it."
I don't.

"But don't try to pass me off as an ignoramus because of my lack of stupidity or superstition."
I don't pass you off as an ignoramus. If that is the perception, it is due to your own behavior, not anything I've said. If you think I've called atheists stupid, feel free to quote me where I said that. You, on the other hand, have called me a believer in fairies, magic sky men, and superstition. You also called me stupid. I'm not interested in an internet slap fight, so say something substantial, not something insulting.

Post: #23

Little exercise able to cure every atheist: OUT OF BODY TRAVEL.

Estimated time until your first experience: 1-2 hours daily for 30-90 days.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Learned-Soul-...157043056X

No belief in it necessary - and remember just one experience would instantly invalidate all theories of no higher Soul existing. Sure - that experience would not prove the existence of God, but it would certainly give you room for pause since you would know then that you are not this body. If you are Soul then maybe there is more to life than just matter and blackness of death.

---------

BTW - Kavi - you get extra props for going out towards the propaganda workers of Islam. It takes certain guts to do it as an Ex-Muslim Apostate who should actually be killed on sight according to the lore.

Don't let one bad religion color you for life. I left Catholicism myself when I was 16. When I was 13 I wanted even to become a priest. Also at age 15-17 I was an Atheist. Only later I became more spiritual and looked for truth elsewhere, truth can be proven, truth is absolute though there are always deeper levels of it.

Debating this guy is one thing, but if you would ever encounter a true mystic like St. Francis of Assissi, Rumi or Shamus-I-Tabriz, then all your debating would come to nothing.

Post: #24

Always found interesting how spiritual experiences seem to avoid atheists. If that didn't happen, they would at least have a doubt in their belief system, but otherwise they have "perfect" explanation for them. "I didn't experience anything, so there is no such thing as paranormal, spiritual, etc."

Post: #25

Actuallyy I have had experiences that I would call 'spiritual'.

However, that doesnt mean I accept I specific type of God exists (one which has not even been defined).

I had a dream of my granddad and myself in a hot air balloon, going up to the sky and having fun, at one point my grandad really turned up the heat and the balloon accelerated up really fast and I became scared. For some reason I fell out and hit the ground and felt I had died. I mean I really felt I had died, but it was not a bad feeling, maybe even a good one. When I woke up and saw my mum she told me her father in India had passed away that night.

Well, that was a nice little experience, but does it mean there is a god, I wouldnt draw that conclusion yet.

For me, Atheism just means it is only valid to talk about things that are well-defined and make sense. Talking about a non-defined vague notion of God doesnt make sense as it can lead to all sorts of nonesense conclusion. As an Atheist the main thing we discuss things that make sense and are well-defined.

If someone says God is the Universe, then fine, but what purpose does the word God fulfill if Universe and God are one and the same. Then, there is no God, but only Universe, and you are an Atheist.

If you want to discuss God, then fine, it must a specific and sufficiently well-defined thing for it be discussed. If you say there is 'something else' then that could be anything, even some part of the physical that we dont know about, so that 'something' should not be equated with God, but with the Universe.