It means it would appear as God doesn't exist. We know how it would look because there are people for whom the world is a place where God not exist. It would do if we lived forever. So who and what are we, in relation to God? That is the question. Can you give a brief synopsis of the book. Jan.
Most people who use the term. So you don't know that God exists? All this time asserting that God exists and you don't actually know? Because I can not say that I am without God. I don't know that I am without God. I do not know that I am with God either. So how can I agree with you asserting that I am without God? Who is to say that your understanding or comprehension of what it is to be "without God" is even correct? I can neither show you are mistaken nor that you are correct. It is your assertion, so you support it. Show it to be true. Show what it means not to be "without God" and show that what you are showing is indeed correct. Yes, children do worship. Children are also taught the doctrine. But what exactly do children have to do with the etymology of the word "religion"? You are still deliberately misinterpreting those articles. And you are also still washing over the issue that a tendency toward belief is no evidence whatsoever of the accuracy or reality of what is believed. Instead you continue on what is nothing but a red-herring; the tendency toward belief, and reasons for it, are interesting enough but for another thread as they are of-topic here. Your theism speaks to your belief, not to whether or not you know something. You can believe without knowing (although you can't know without believing). Classically the relationship is that knowledge is a justified true belief. So you have repeatedly confirmed that you are a theist, but do you, or do you not, know that God exists? So God is subjective, then. Okay. Please don't shift the burden, Jan. You claim it is true, so you support your assertion, rather than just repeat it ad nauseam. Show me that there is a broken tie to God. Only then will your question be relevant. No, there is no good argument: a tendency toward a belief in something is no evidence of the veracity of the existence of that something. So you seem to be missing a considerable chunk of argument to get from one to the other. Of course it's possible. For that to have happened, God must exist and there had to have been a link. Neither of those can be proven to have been true, or to be true now. It is also possible that the belief is simply a coping mechanism to help explain that which we aren't yet equipped to otherwise understand: a God of the gaps, if you will. Do you think that this is possible? You wish me to agree to something that I don't know is true or not. Why should I do that? You show that there is a God and that I am currently "without God" then I will agree. Alternatively you show me that there is no God at all, such that we are all "without God", then I will agree. And that you are clearly struggling to understand my position (and I am an atheist) really does you no favours when you are otherwise wishing to assert things about atheists. Your idea of rational, I'm probably not. You believe certain things exist while I have no such belief. That alone should tell you that are notions of what is rational or not are different. Because, if you actually read the news report on those studies, they are simply referring to a tendency toward belief in something. Are you asserting that a tendency toward belief in X is evidence that X actually exists? Not at all. It is an interesting study indeed. You have simply jumped to conclusions about the study that are not logically there. As already argued, which you have failed to address, it is a description that also fits some non-atheists. However, the modern usage of the term fits only actual atheists. Go figure. Some, perhaps most, seem to tend toward belief in some superior agency, yes. Again, you are equating a tendency to belief in something as somehow being evidence of that thing existing. Why are you doing that? Do you not consider it possible that it is simply an evolutionary coping mechanism to help explain that which is otherwise incomprehensible? In what way does the article prove that God exists, or provide any evidence for God existing? Or are you going to tell me that the nature of God is as a purely subjective evolutionary coping mechanism for helping explain what we might otherwise consider incomprehensible? How do they do that, exactly? All they do is demonstrate a tendency to believe, not the actuality of what is believed in. Anything else you have to show that what you comprehend as God is actually God? Show the that it's actually about God, then. If I can come up with an alternative explanation then there is doubt, and thus no certainty. Only if I go in with an a priori assumption of God's existence, and ignore all possible alternatives... Is that what you are proposing? Is that what you would find rational? Okay, but if ID is really all you fall back on then I am genuinely disappointed. I do read the words, and I come up with a genuine response. If that response defends my position, if that response validates my position, then so be it. So you keep asserting.
Continued... I'm saying that for you there is no God to comprehend.[/quote]So God is subjective. Got it. The emotional comprehension is the epitome of subjective. The chemical, neurological, activity in the person's body would be what is objective. Once again you show a lack of understanding of objective vs subjective existence. Are you suggesting your inability/unwillingness to entertain the notion is somehow evidence that God does exist? Why can you not bring yourself to consider the notion? Even if you wish to consider it merely hypothetical? Please posit the evidence, and note that evidence of a preponderance toward belief is not evidence that "God Is", for reasons outlined above, and by others here. So you undoubtedly believe. I'm not looking to win. I'm looking for the truth. So I believe at the moment. It is mostly intellectual, because the practical world is more binary in such matters (I.e. There is limited scope to act "undecided"). But it is certainly informing my responses here, my investigations here. So in that regard is practical, yes. I do not have the believe that there is any God to deny. If you see it as me denying everything that is positive toward God, that speaks to your belief. Where have I claimed that? Preponderance to believe in a "superhuman" I think is more apt. Now, you show how a psychological preponderance to belief is more than just an evolutionary coping mechanism, and you may be on to something. Clearly you do. But you think a lot of things I don't. I have explained, Jan. But let me reiterate so that there is no excuse on your part: You assert I am without God. You do this without any support whatsoever. Per your understanding of the term, for me to be "without God" there would need be an actual God. You have been unable to prove that this God exists. It may do. I don't claim to know or even believe one way or the other. I thus rationally can not accept your assertion that I am "without God", because I do not know whether God exists or not. You believe God does exist. You assert I am "without God", thus implying God actually exists. All the onus is on you, Jan.
Believing that everything has a purpose is not the same as having a predisposition to believe in gods.
Indeed. Nor is believing that everything has a purpose evidence that everything does have a purpose. I have come to notice that Jan tends to jump on anything that sounds as though it supports his case, and then twists and reinterprets the findings so as to conclude what he wants it to, rather than actually reading and understanding what it says. In this instance it is Jan reaching the conclusion that it somehow works as evidence of God's existence rather than simply being evidence of an in-built tendency to seek a comforting explanation, that explanation when we're younger being a "superhuman". Unfortunately for Baldeee, Jan seems convinced that the "evidence " is as he has interpreted, and thus anyone who disputes it or doesn't change their view as a result is clearly not acting rationally. (Don't worry, Baldeee, you are! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) All it does in reality is highlight Jan's own thought process, and provides invaluable insight into why someone might continue a belief they grew up with. Although maybe it is as simple as such people being unable to comprehend the alternative to "God did it" and thus stick with what is a security blanket of an answer, no matter how much circularity is brought to bear upon its justification. Previously the band-wagon was his obsession with Anthony Flew, being the only atheist Jan seems aware of that has subsequently declared a belief that God exists. In that instance Jan uses Flew's switch itself as almost incontrovertible proof, without actually examining the logic behind Flew's arguments for switching. Basically a case of "if Flew switched then it must be true!"
I'm not convinced that Jan has any consistent views on this stuff. If he/she does, it's always kept as mysterious and cryptic as possible. I'm more inclined to think that Jan just reacts to other people's posts, arguing against anything that the other person says, in hopes of keeping all the dogs barking and always being the center of their attention. With Jan the focus seems to be the incessant battle, rather than the development and elaboration of a single coherent philosophy of religion.
So when you say god doesn't exist for atheists, you really mean that he doesn't appear to exist for them. Which is all we are saying, he doesn't appear to exist. Certainly not through evidence, but also not from introspection or sincere seeking. Even Saint Theresa wrote in her biography that although she had faith, she didn't feel god in any kind of direct way. Privately, Teresa experienced doubts and struggle in her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years (until the end of her life); according to her postulator, Brian Kolodiejchuk, "She felt no presence of God whatsoever ... in her heart or in the eucharist".[130] Teresa expressed grave doubts about God's existence and pain over her lack of faith: Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul.[131] (wikipedia) The premise of this sci-fi book is that all the gods that were ever believed in exist in various states of power, the least believed-in are the least powerful, and eventually wither away into irrelevance when they lose all their believers. The newest gods are ones of technology. They are also at war with the old gods.
Can I say all religions are fantasy in every sense? Oh I just did Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree, and yet folk seem happy to indulge. I can't understand how they hold up some ancient text as special and not comprehend the author just made stuff up. When you discover a lie or gross mistake in someone's story it is clear the story is unreliable and therefore worthless. If you had a friend who lied to you I can't see how you could maintain trust. If you use a product and find it does not meet a simple standard why would you continue to use it. I just do not get the blinkered approach. But its clear there are plenty of mugs out there looking for something. I just don't understand how they will fall for the nonsence that is religion. Its like a piece of their brain doesn't work. I met a person who was interesting to talk to, seemingly intelligent, well read and on the face of it normal but took the bible literally...Started to tell me how the ancients lived for hundreds of years, that the ark story was factual...I could not believe it. I did not argue knowing that notwithstanding his layer of normality his was as crazy as a loon. He seemed to like me and wanted me to join his bible reading group. I made the mistake of attending. It is alarming that such folk are out there who are absolutely incapable of rational thought. OH I did learn that the Earth is only about 6000 years old and that fossils are placed by Satan to encourage lack of belief in creation. But if not preoccupied by the bible what could these nutters turn to? Anyways I decided it was time to move away and their presence in the neighbourhood was one of the reasons I went bush. I feel as if I arrived on this planet thousands of years early. I hope the human race can evolve to leave superstition in their embarrassing past well behind. Alex
You are still subscribing to a subjective world. If God were to exist objectively (not just in the hearts of theists), then an atheist who believed God didn't exist would be wrong. Me, I wish to discuss God's objective existence (or not). However, I am OK with you arguing subjective existence, because it means your subjective experience of God is consistent with a world where God is only experienced in the hearts of believers, not out where the rest of us live. Objective or subjective? Your call.
And as such they accept it. The irony is that she was appealing to God. This portion of the quote did not come from Mother Teresa's mind. "Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One," wrote Mother Teresa in a personal prayer-confession to Jesus. Mother Teresa had a relationship with God. Now we move into the territory of being "with God". Like Jesus's on the cross, Mother Teresa believed that God had forsaken her. Her love and devotion is what is being displayed. She doubts God's love for her, not God's existence. Sounds good. Did they ever make a movie? Jan.
God does not exist, as far as atheists are concerned, is very much objective reality. It seems as though they are. We are. God Is. But atheist do not comprehend that. Objecive. It is your condition that prevents you from realising it. Hey Dave, I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any atheist. Show that I am mistaken. Jan.
I believe all religions, that are God-centered, Base their identity on the principles of religion, as espoused by scriptures. Jan.
We're not talking about trying to convince children. We're talking about a natural inclination, prior to being taught. Whatever you think about it, it is natural. Jan.
I agree with your assertion (though it's overstated. I insert the word probably) My stance is that God (probably) doesn't exist - that goes for atheist and theist alike. Here's a counter assertion: I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any theist. Show that I am mistaken. Note though, your use of weasel words. You are using a specious definition of 'exist'. Witness the use of the word "for" (i.e. for this person, but not that person), which points to a subjective view. Existence is objective. By the same logic, monetary wealth doesn't exist for starving children in Africa. Yet, if such a child were to say "monetary wealth does not objectively exist" he would be wrong. So yes, you're still talking about subjectivity. And I am still comfortable with your assertion that God exists "for you", i.e. without reference to any external reality.
You got me. You're absolutely correct from your limited perspective. Yes existence is objective, and God is. Yes it does. They just don't get it. It wouldn't surprise me if the people for whom compassion doesn't exist, are at the heart of it. I know you do. Jan.
So you admit you have failed to refute that God doesn't exist for you or anyone else. That's because of your limited perspective. Now, are we done with the pissing contest? Because this isn't grown-up conversation where I come from. Good. So, to sum: God does not exist for atheists. God does not exist for theists.
