Jan . . . . . Having followed most of this thread, I surmise (that means IMO, for the nitpickers!) that most of the atheists' arguments here are geared toward trying to prove there is no God in an attempt to justify their own belief system as atheists. After all, they consider that there is 'safety in numbers' and if they can 'win the argument', their belief (or lack thereof, any) is surely justified. In the end, that may (IMO) be the scenario that everyone exhibits some temerity regarding their own belief system(s), because 'belief' does not necessarily require any proofs. One difference between atheists and theists is that theists tend to not require proofs to instill confidence in their 'beliefs', whereas atheists tend to parry arguments by requiring evidentiary proofs to maintain their own belief systems.
What nobody seems to recognize is that JAN IS A TROLL. (A very good troll, one of the best I've ever seen.) I don't think that Jan really has any religious ideas or beliefs, certainly not any that he/she wants to share. Jan just makes it up as he/she goes. Jan is very good at filling posts with little emotional jabs. Atheists lack something critically important. Something that every other human being naturally has. The reason atheists lack it is their own fear. That fear makes them incomplete. So atheists will never understand the subject of religion. Jan hints constantly that he or she is trying to teach everyone something (but never, ever, reveals what it is). I'd guess that it's a years-long game of 'back-atcha' directed at the atheists, who from the point of view of religious people often seem to employ very similar rhetoric. Atheists like to pose as the intellectuals in threads, the practitioners of Logic, the voice of Science and so on. There's usually an insulting implication that religious people are deficient in terms of intellect and education and there's often lots of talking-down. Atheists love to claim that they have no burden of proof and are making no factual assertions, then relentlessly attack anything religious people say. So Jan just uses the same tricks and throws it back at everyone. Unfortunately, this back-and-forth bullshit takes over pretty much every religion thread here on Stupidforums. Threads just go on and on and on and on and on endlessly in circles. They never reach any conclusion (which might be too much to hope for) nor do discussions ever grow any more sophisticated (which is the goal in the philosophy of religion).
It might be: provided you don't actually read such posts. Perhaps you could outline some of the tenets of this "belief system" that atheists are trying to justify.
. . . still trolling, I see, Dywyddyr . . . . If you re-read my post that you reference, you will notice . . . . . IMO . . . . . . as such, I owe no one any outlines of any atheist tenets . . . . troll elsewhere, please . . .!
In other words you're simply posting bollocks for the sake of it: i.e. trolling. And the only reason that you persist in using "IMO" is because you're fully aware that it's the only way you can "get away" with such crap - you have no intention (or, apparently, capability) of justifying your inane drivel so the use of "IMO" is your safety net. Got it.
Actually, it's the basis of theism - which came first. The basis of atheism is simply "prove your assertion." There is no position to defend. The burden remains on you to first demonstrate you have a valid argument. You still haven't.
Indeed, it has become increasingly apparent that Jan has stepped up his tactics and argues in bad faith. He simply preaches his beliefs over and over without defending them. Well, that's not fair - he's not defending them because he can't. In all this time, he has been unable to show that his belief in God extends to the real world.
IMO, you haven't actually followed this thread at all. If you had you would have concluded that the atheists are not trying to prove there is no God but simply looking for those who claim that God exists provide something with which to support that assertion. Why do you put things in quote-marks? I'm fairly sure that most who have contributed to this thread are quite happy debating their side solo against the other. I see no approach from anyone that suggests a sense of safety in numbers, nor that if they win a point that their position is justified. And if any do think that winning a point from Jan, if that is their desire rather than having an actually discussion, helps them justify their position then they really should be aspiring higher. They do if they state that that what they believe is reality. Even if they caveat it with any number of "IMO"s. So on what basis do you think they hold the belief? Wishful thinking? Ignorance? Appeal to authority? They tend to require evidence before they accept anything as real, yes. This is what they consider to be rational. This is part of what they consider to be the application of criticial thinking. So the question remains, why do theists not apply the same?
Thesis live in alternative reality which only requires such reality to reside within the brain making it hidden from the real real world and as such exempt from evidence Alternative reality Is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You would be wrong. Those of us with a rationalist point of view are challenging the initial assertion (made here) that there is a God. So far, the only evidence has been that God exists as a concept in Jan's head. Some of us like to be a little more sure than that. The conclusion is - not that there is or isn't a God - but that believing in God is an issue of faith, not of objectivity. True, many of us believe that God probably doesn't exist (everbody gets to have their personal beliefs), but we acknowledge that we have no objective evidence for our beliefs, which is why a] we allow for the possibility either way, and b] we don't state our personal beliefs as if they are objectively true. It is these two points that make our arguments rational - and the lack of these two points that makes Jan's argument irrational.
The basis of atheism is the subconscious denial of God. Asking to prove God exists on their personal terms, is a way to justify that denial. God Is, is the default position. The atheists are denying it, seemingly by any means necessary. Jan.
Back to this again, Yazata. Personal beliefs aren't necessary, unless the discussion is specifically about personal beliefs. There's nothing emotional about anything I've said. It is a fact that God does not exist as far as atheists are aware. Even if they are open-minded and conclude that they do not know whether or not God exists. We are either aware of God, or we're not. Demanding proof or evidence for God does nothing but show God does not currently exist as far as they're aware. That's not trolling. That seems to be the fear of atheists. I have jokingly used the term "teach" to Dave. But that was messing around. Other than that, this is a baseless accusation. This thread didn't have to go on and on. Turning it into a "Does God Exist" thread, by the atheists didn't help. The problem is that atheists don't accept that the reason why they atheist, is because God does not exist as far as they are aware. Instead they keep changing the subject of the thread, so they don't have to go into it. Jan.
Why are you? It is obvious that for there isn't, and for me God Is. Maybe that's just the way it is. Do you think it's possible? Jan.
Sorry, but I find that little atheist maneuver just as bogus as the games Jan plays. Atheists don't just lack belief in God. Which (contra Jan) WOULDN'T be the same thing as lacking God. If God doesn't objectively exist, then everyone lacks God whatever they happen to believe (unless one wants to deny the possibility of false beliefs), since in reality there is no God. And if on the other hand God does exist, then God exists for the unbelievers as well as the believers, even if the atheists fail to acknowledge God's reality. Theological theories of post-mortem judgement depend on that. People can't escape God's judgement simply by becoming atheist. Jan seems to deviate radically from Christian and Islamic tradition at that point. Atheists typically go far beyond simply not believing in God. Among other things, they insist that there is no good evidence for the existence of God. (Which is a factual claim.) They claim that disbelief in God is the best and most rational position to take. (Which is an epistemological claim.) There's often additional stuff about religion's role in history, the desirability of eliminating religion and atheism's supposed relationship with Science. Just rhetorically (which is where all this 'burden of proof' stuff comes from, it doesn't come from logic) the burden lies on anyone who hopes to convince somebody else of something that other person doesn't already believe in. That applies to atheists as much as theists. I agree that if somebody wants to convince me to share their religious beliefs, they need to persuade me why I should believe as they do. That's on them. Jan makes no attempt and just posts subtle (and not so subtle) insults. But sadly, that's pretty much all that the atheists do as well. Frankly, I don't know what would convince me of the existence of God. But not all religions are theistic and they don't all focus on "accessing" God (as Jan puts it) or having the right relationship to divinities. I believe that early Pali Buddhism presents a reasonably strong case for at least setting out on its path. It doesn't make a whole lot of metaphysical claims about things humans probably can't ever really know but must nevertheless believe. Verification concerning whether that particular path is worth following would then become available (or maybe not) through the experiences made possible through undertaking the religious practice.
I agree with Yaz. While most intellectual theists have the good sense to know that metaphysical claims cannot be supported with physical evidence, atheists are the only ones making evidentiary claims. And as such, the latter's claim that there is no good evidence of a god seems to infer some degree of exhaustion of possibilities...and even some irrational presumption on the nature of metaphysical evidence. Simply assuming there should be physical evidence for a god is a denial of the metaphysical nature of such things. So no matter to what degree removed, the arguments of atheism are grounded in denial...of the thing's nature, if not the thing itself.
