NobleTeam360 said:
No shit. @ second bolded I never said that God = everything. Example of someone putting words in peoples mouths, when they never said that. |
actually, you did. Indirectly. You said "having something to believe in is more satisfying than having nothing to believe in". "Something to believe in" in this case, is God. And your alternative? "nothing to believe in". If it's either you believe in God or you believe in nothing, it stands to reason that you believe God = everything. And if God is only just "something" and not "everything", then why is the alternative to believing in him, "believing in nothing", when there are other things to believe in?
Or is "having something to believe in" not a reference to God, in the context of what you said? I highly doubt that. "having something to believe in" (God) "is more satisfying than having nothing to believe in". If these are the opposite of each other, then what is the opposite of nothing? Everything. And the opposite of believing in nothing is believing in God, for you. Find a chip in my logic, then, that you didn't imply God = everything? Or did you just speak too loosely, parroting the false statement "atheists believe in nothing"?








