Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, Oct 9, 2017.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What facts ?
I'm not so sure.
Jan says that God does not exist like pots and pans exist. He also says that Peter Pan is real in the same way that God is real.
His exact position is hard to pin down, and it seems to slide around as necessary to protect his God belief.
I don't know whether he would even say he has faith in God. Not faith in the fact that God Is/exists, anyway. For a start, he thinks he knows that God Is, so he thinks that faith is not required. As far as I can tell.
Forget proving him wrong. My aim is simply to get him to express whatever his view is in a coherent, consistent way. I think I'm fighting a losing battle on that.
Do you believe everything, you have written in this thread?
I'm mentioning atheists.
It doesn't matter what you decide to ''look at'', there is no God, for you. That's what 'atheist' means.
Haven't you got that yet?
Theism is false, as far as you're concerned. It cannot, not be false, because as an atheist, you are without God.
No. I'm saying there are two positions, God Is, and without God. You are without God, which is why you have no choice to but to accept, that currently, there is no God. Some atheists will go as far as to say ''God does not exist'', because there is no God, as far as they are aware. Some will say, ''I don't know if there is a God'', but while they contemplate, they have to admit, if they are honest, that there is no God, as far as they are aware. Either way, as an atheist, there is no God for you. Do you have a problem with that?
How do you understand that?
When it comes to the subject of God, we can never be in agreement.
So you are a strong atheist?
I've nothing to tell you James. There is no God, as far as you're concerned.
That is as far as we can go.
By the way they talk about, and discuss, God.
I'm not a control freak, James. I would have to be engaged in a conversation before I know what will be discussed.
For you, it could be if you decided it was.
My point is, you can think anything you like about the character, God, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.
I don't think you fully comprehend your position. I think you fool yourself, a lot.
I only tell you what I think.
I think the conversation is going really smoothly. You just need to stop trying to sum up what you can't comprehend.
You're not in the driving seat, James, and it bugs the hell out of you. I'm having a blast.
Because this is a discussion board, and this is the only thread that I am currently partaking in (Yazata will be pleased).
I've told you exactly what I think.
You just don't like it.
For you, God is ficticious. This is what I've been saying all along.
You are atheist, which means ''without God''. Don't you get it yet?
As long as you have the mindset of an atheist (the fool doth say in his heart, there is no God), God will always be no more than a ficticious character.
You can of course protest all you like, ask for all the proof, evidence, explanations, logic, science, philosophy, mathematics, etc. But for you, there can be no God.
God Is, and everything exist because of that.
That's how I define God.
Is that so?
Can you bring up the quote?
Thanks in advance.
Based on what I have written about God, and Peter Pan, how do you arrive at this conclusion?
No. Unless you know that it isn't. Other than that, it is a simple error.
It depends on the person.
Maybe you had one beer too many.
Maybe you saw billboard posters, about European holiday breaks.
Could be any number of reasons you made that error.
But it is not a belief, as in, a belief system, or something that is intrinsic in your life.
The chances are, you won't make that mistake again.
All in all, it is a shyte example, and you should come up with something that is more apropriate, instead of wasting time over this.
I'm not sidetracking anything. I've told you it is a shyte example. So see if you can come up with a better one, move on.
I don't accept it, so come up with another one.
Alex, is there a god that is real and exists?
James, I know you're desparate to feel superior over theists, but you have to stop misquoting me. It is very naughty.
But you clearly agreed that "false" may also refer to "not true".
Are you now retracting that agreement?
If not then you must agree that if something is not true it can be said to be false.
Are you now saying that unless you know something to be "not true" that it is not "not true"?
Are you saying that if you don't know something to be false (which you have agreed may refer to "not true") then it is true????
That a "simple error" is not actually false?
This is what the logic of your statements deduces to, Jan.
No, if you describe someone as a person who is silly then you are describing them as a silly person.
This is the way the English language works, Jan.
A person who is dead is a dead person.
A person who is happy is a happy person.
A dog who has three legs is a three-legged dog.
Thus if you describe someone as being foolish then you are describing them as being a foolish person.
Or, in other words, a fool.
So no matter if you say words to the effect of "I don't mean to be insulting...", if what you then say is insulting, you have insulted, whether there was intention or not.
Never said it had to be.
Beliefs come in all shapes and sizes, Jan, some important and upon which you might base your worldview, some frivolous as believing your team will win a match.
But the scale or importance of the belief does not negate what a false belief is.
No matter the scale, if it is not consistent with fact then it is a false belief.
You may wish to delineate between small beliefs and large ones, between significant and insignificant, but that does not change what is meant by a belief being false.
Given that it is quite clearly highlighting an issue between understanding as to what a false belief is considered to be, it seems to be a very good example indeed.
Or are you expecting only an example that conforms with your understanding, and all other examples are to be considered "shyte"?
You are sidetracking and continue to do so.
Rather than claim it is a rubbish example, given that it has adequately expressed how Sarkus, JamesR, and myself view what a false belief is, why not simply apply that meaning to when they use the term?
So when they say that by "false belief" they mean "a belief that does not conform to fact", you can't accept what they mean?
Had they written "belief that does not conform to fact" in lieu of "false belief" then you would have issue with them using those words??
If not then you are accepting of what they/I mean by "false belief".
Any non-acceptance you then have left is simply about an example to help explain what is meant, which is actually moot once you simply interpret our use of "false belief" as intended.
Basically you're just arguing this point for the sake of delaying, evading and all your usual nonsense.
No surprises there then.
A tupee, in and of itself, is neither false, or not true, but if you wear one, giving the impression that it is your real hair, then that is false.
If I believe that it is your real hair, I do not hold a false belief. The belief is true.
If I know that you are wearing a tupee, but believe that it is you're real hair, then I have a false belief.
You're mistaking the object of belief, with the belief.
Why is that frivalous?
Then we should agree to disagree.
Nope. It's a shyte example.
Come up with a better one.
Well good luck I certainly will be watching.
Jan I think there are over a thousand Gods available each are real to someone but for me they don't exist.
No, I'm really not.
The belief is "that hair is real" (or Paris is the capital of Spain... the example is no different logically to the one you have complained about... so I guess you think your own example is shyte?).
It is a relational belief: that something conforms to reality.
Does the belief conform to reality?
Hence it can be considered a false belief.
Sure - but at least you now know what JamesR, Sarkus, I (and possibly others) mean when they refer to something as a "false belief".
You now have no excuse to sidetrack any discussion to this semantic matter.
Any attempt to you to do so will be considered further trolling and dishonesty on your part.
Whether you think it shyte or not, it has served its purpose.
To me that qualifies it as being not shyte.
What does it mean to be without and you commit suicide?
The fact that the bible is made up.
And God created etc. is made up as no one was witness to anything so the account was made up.
The fact that there is no evidence that God exists.
God= Entity or concept? God= Within universe or beyond universe? If omnipotent it can be creater of universe and so beyond universe. If omnipresent, it should be within universe. Then, how to justify?
Moreover: God As Entity:
Prime God= Prime Force of or within all four fundamental forces or Prime particle of or will in all Elementary particles?
Secondary God/God son/God incarnation= Whoever has properties of or like of Prime God?
God as concept= True balance state of all things & beings? Somewhat like a center-line between a wave.
You're wasting everybody's time here. It is quite clear that at this point in the discussion you are simply repeating your mantras and stonewalling with non-responses to questions.
At the same time, it's quite a spectacle to watch you try to redefine well-understood English words every time you think you need to in order to avoid actually having to address a question honestly and openly. So far, we've seen you try to redefine "atheism", "existence", "belief", even "true" and "false". You just look more and more shifty and evasive with every post you make.
It is such a shame that you refuse to have this discussion in good faith. I don't think you're actually ready for an honest discussion about God, in your current state. I hope that, given some time to reflect, you will return one day
ready to face up to some of the issues that we have put to you here.
I asked you a question. You didn't even attempt to answer it. Instead we see this attempt at deflection from you.
Then you skipped over the fundamental question I put to you in the post you are supposedly responding to: what do you think a belief is? And what makes a belief true or false?
This is no longer about atheists. It hasn't been for some time. This is about basic logic.
If there is no God, then theism is a false belief.
If you don't agree, you ought to tell me why. I have defined "false belief" for you concisely. You, while claiming to have a different understanding of "false belief", have not even taken a line or two to explain what you mean that term.
Instead, we get this stonewalling and repetitive, pointless nonsense from you.
If God does not exist, then theism is a false belief. It's not "false" in the sense that you don't actually hold the belief, or something. It's false in the sense that it doesn't correspond to the fact that there is no God.
Note carefully: I am making no claim here about God's existence, and in particular I am not saying that God does not exist. This is purely a matter of parsing the logical statement: if this then that.
Specifically, if theism is the belief that God exists, then if God does not in fact exist then theism is belief in something that is false (i.e. it is a false belief). Substitute "Is" for "exists" if you can't cope with the straightforward definition of theism. You still can't avoid the logic that is being put to you, other than by continuing to stonewall.
Please confirm then, that you are not saying that there is a God and there isn't a God, simultaneously. Really, it's like trying to get blood out of a stone talking to you.
No. I explained what I understand that term to mean earlier in the thread, as you will recall, and I stated my own position quite clearly back there.
I can see that.
Why so vague? Please be specific.
More stonewalling. Why am I not surprised that you went nowhere with that?
What's all this "for you" business?
You really don't know what objective truth is, do you Jan? It's all subjective for you.
Also, don't you have any opinions or thoughts of your own? Is your presuming to tell me what I think really all you have to offer?
You're making yourself looking like a dogmatic, evasive, fool who also can't follow simple logical implications. If that gives you a blast, good luck to you. I think I've done rather a neat job of bringing out the real you for all to see. (Credit also goes to Sarkus and Baldeee.)
Never mind what I think; that's already on record earlier in the thread.
The important thing here is that we've drilled down and discovered that, for you, God is on the same ontological footing as fictional characters like Peter Pan.
Repetitive stonewalling. Do you think I don't notice when you continuously avoid answering direct questions that are put to you many times? Do you think other readers won't notice?
Oh, have I made a mistake?
Are you now saying that God is real, after all?
Is there any meaningful distinction in your mind between God and Peter Pan, in terms of their respective "reality"? That's the question I put to you previously, in essence, which you tried not to answer.
I asked you a question. Why don't you answer it? Then it will be your turn to ask me a question. See how this works?
Jan has been doing this EXACT SAME THING for several years now.
What's that definition of insanity? Doin the same thing over and over again but expecting different results?
Anyone who tries to get a straight answer out of Jan is insane.
But its fun to watch.
Its fun to try and out wit him.
He can be beaten but not at his game but I have noticed ways which involves playing the game differently..
He does not handle certain approaches well at all.
I enjoy how frustrating he can be as I said its fun to watch...we all wait to see him bested...although I hope that never happens as it would crush him I feel.
There have been times when I felt I could crush him but I backed off I could not do it to him.
Separate names with a comma.