­­

No, see someone saying "there is no God" does not create a paradox. It is when someone begins to start trying to disprove God that creates the paradox. Every time someone triesto disprove God, an answer is throwm back meaning that every "disproval" builds a stronger case for God. In summation. For an atheist to say "i dont believe" doesnt create a paradox, it stops right there. They may even support it with a why. But it is when they claim to be able to disprove God that they allow for further support for his existence, thus starts the paradox.

Saying that I wouldn't exist without a god implies that a god exists in the first place, which he/she/they/it doesn't. Belief in a deity is taught. We're all born with no knowledge of any god, we're technically all atheists at birth. No one believes in a god until someone tells them a god exists. Some people become indoctrinated into the faith of their parents or community, while some of us reject the mass delusion that is religion.

Is your logic a block of swiss cheese? [spoiler]cuz I'm seein' a lot of holes[/spoiler]

Ever heard of a syllogism? If not, that's why your train of thought is absolutely wrong. The Christian God is a concept of an omnipotent being, who is by definition superhuman. The greek gods were still superhumans, however not omnipotent. The Buddhists oth believe in Buddha, who once was human, and definitely wasn't omnipotent. So the first issue with your question is one of the nomenclature. What kind of god do you mean (you could say that it's obvious that you mean the Christian interpretation of a god, you question isn't formulated in such a way though)? The second issue is the word "believe". Believing means that you have no proof. You just believe. Thus going by the word believe, an atheist has absolutely no need of acknowledging the true existence of a god, as he refuses to believe that such an entity, the concept of a god itself, could even exist. If god would truly exist, by definition, atheism itself would be wrong. There simply is no Paradox. Just a huge logical fallacy in your post. A believer needs god, to justify his faith. If god isn't real, his faith was useless. He might have even worshipped the wrong god. An atheist however needs the inexistence of God. If God would exist, the PoV of the Atheist would be inherently wrong, as reality contradicts the Atheist's beliefs. Your question and paradox are nonsensical, simply because you don't seem to realise that an Atheist has no need for a God's existence. If the concept of a God truly exists outside of metaphysical hallucinations, Atheists wouldn't exist. I liked the analogy from other users: Do I have to truly believe in Unicorns/Dragons and suppose their existence is real, to say that they aren't real? No of course not. Dragons and Unicorns are creatures from fairy tales, nothing more, and nothing else. Just because I can imagine something, doesn't mean that it truly exists. You must also have some sort of persecution complex, as Christians have it mightily well in our western societies. As a Muslim however, I would understand your prefacing words of hate and intolerance towards religions.

Just because we give something a word doesn't mean it's real. We have a word for unicorn, but we know unicorns aren't real. We have a word for leprechauns, but we know leprechauns aren't real. Same goes for gods.

I believe in the 8 divines

No worries brah it's trendy and fun for teenie boppers to be atheist thru the adolescent years. It'll change later for sure

Your logic is flawed, there is no paradox. That's like saying centaurs must exist for me to not believe in them.