In regards to atheism.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Oct 15, 2015.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    So what do you think it takes to realise God?

    You make claims all the time, Jan. You just don't seem to be aware you are doing so. With your "definitions" here, even, you are claiming the existence of God as fact. What you seem to lack, though, is the ability/willing to identify the implications of what you type, but rather you work on the basis that if you haven't explicitly stated something then you haven't stated it at all.

    God's existence is being claimed. You claim not to be an atheist, you claim atheists are "without God" for which your usage of the term "without" implies the existence of that thing. Thus you imply that God exists. This is a claim. By you.
    The question then is how do you prove to yourself that He exists? Or do you perhaps just blindly accept God, not actually knowing if He exists or not?
    I refer the honourable gentleman to the first line of his post: "What the atheist isn't aware of is that you don't realise God by being convinced by someone." Now you are claiming that atheists do in fact know that they don't have to be convinced. I hate to bring this up again, Jan, but you are woefully inconsistent with your arguments.
    And thus you fail to comprehend the atheist position, Jan. Sure, you have built your caricature strawman, and proudly beat up on it, yet actual atheists are just looking on and shaking their head with pity at the sight.
    The issue of burden of proof is not a diversionary tactic, Jan, but rather it stems from the very position you claim to understand about atheists. The only reason you see it as a diversionary tactic is in an attempt to wash the issue away so that you don't have to face it.
    Sure, you feel that proof is not an issue for you, that you can't prove things to the atheist, but that doesn't alter that the issue being a valid one for the atheist. You don't get to dismiss it as merely a diversionary tactic when it stems from the core of the atheist mindset: why have belief that something is fact when there is no convincing evidence for it.
    Maybe if you weren't so preoccupied with your strawman atheist you might consider indulging in a discussion with actual atheists, and not treating them all as having the single viewpoint or property of your strawman.
    Does your arrogance know no limit? So atheists don't all fall into the mould of your strawman, thus we are clearly playing mind games?

    You have no interest in discussion, Jan. As others have pointed out, to you it is just a war. You create conflict and then run around like the victim. If people don't act or respond in line with your preconceived notions of how they should then you excuse it as irrelevant, or mind games. And at worse you simply accuse the most of lying.

    You have no interest in discussion, Jan, so - as has been asked before of you - why do you bother posting here?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968

    So do you. You claim that unless there is external evidence that convinces you of God, God probably doesn't exist. IOW God doesn't exist unless....
    You imply that external evidence CAN possibly provide evidence of God.
    You imply that you can know that God exists upon revelation of such evidence.
    You imply that it is not possible for God to be known to theists, and unknown to atheists.
    I'll leave you with that for the time being, but I have a bag of claims that you make, and have made.

    There is no claim that God is a fact, only that God Is.

    I don't claim that atheists are without God, their label does that. I merely accept that label as correct based what I have experienced..
    Like I said some posts before, elephants, stars, and newspapers exist, God Is. It is the atheist who queries existence. Unfortunately theists have got
    caught up in the atheist mindset. We should stop.

    Existence, and proving such, is your thing. It is how you remain fixed in your position. Allude to something that will never happen, and in that way you are blissful in your position.
    I don't have prove God to you because God doesn't exist for you.

    Don't worry, I'm aware of you obfuscatory tactics.
    You don't have to accept anything anyone says regarding God. It's that simple Sarkus.

    Firstly, it's not a strawman. It is the literal meaning of the label you don, and furthermore it fits not only you, but every single atheist.
    It is the only definition that is universal. You can shake your head in so called pity, and break out in a bout of denial if you like, but that meaning is no strawman.

    You can't prove something to anyone, that doesn't exist.
    God does not currently exist for any atheist, hence there is nothing to prove.
    Simply accept that God does not currently exist for you. I'm okay with that.

    Obviously I have interest in discussion, lest I wouldn't be here discussing.
    You have to turn on me, because you have nowhere else to go, and you're certainly not going to concede, as you have too much pride.

    I post on here because I enjoy talking about God.

    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Whoa! That stood out right there. It's like walking to the edge of nonsense then now you decided to jump into the depths.

    God Is what?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Same thing.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't know that it's possible. God could be such a nonsensical concept that it makes no sense that there would be evidence of it.
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Which means that god has no influence on his life, which means that god isn't omnipotent, which means it's not a god. Are humans so powerful that they can negate any action by god all by themselves?
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    Once again you demonstrate that you lack comprehension of the atheist position. There is no "God doesn't exist unless...", there is merely "I don't have the belief that God does exist unless...".
    Further, while some atheists conclude that "God probably doesn't exist", I am not one. I simply have nothing upon which to base an assessment of probability, so can not assert any probability.
    No, I assert that I don't know whether evidence CAN provide evidence of God or not. You, on the other hand, assert that it does: along the lines of "if God is the cause of all then everything is evidence of God" etc.
    No, I have only ever asserted that I might possibly know that God exists upon revelation of such.
    No, I have never implied this either. It is entirely possible that God, in his mysterious ways, only becomes known to theists. I simply do not know. I don't believe it to be the case, but nor do I believe it is not the case. I assert that I do not know.
    Well, you're zero for four at the moment, so I hope you do better with your next batch.
    I'm fairly sure you're the only one here who can't see that claiming "God is" is to assert that God exists, and thus that God is a fact. Are you going to start playing your redefining of words again?
    Therefore, by deduction, you claim that atheists are without God.
    This is yet another case of you being unwilling to take responsibility of the implications of what you say, only for what you explicitly say.
    You claim the label atheist means "without God".
    You "accept that label as correct based on what I have experienced".
    Thus, by simple deduction, you are claiming atheists to be without God.
    Now take ownership of your own arguments, your own implicit claims, or, with all due respect, just quit this place.
    Please, Jan, do stop. Do us all a favour before we get contaminated with your utter nonsense. First, this thread is "regarding atheism" - so unless you are willing to actually engage with atheists on the issues they raise then all you will do is stroke your own strawman.
    Yet you can prove to yourself that God exists, while using the same "evidence" we atheists see no link to the necessity of God. So what is the difference? Is this where you pull out your trite "without God" answer?
    Non sequitur. What you mean is that you think you can't prove God to atheists because you think God doesn't exist for atheists.
    There's nothing obfuscatory about highlighting your inconsistencies, Jan. But I note that you fail to actually address the criticism, or clarify your position, but instead simply try to deflect. I really shouldn't expect anything more, I suppose.
    No, Jan, the only thing that fits every atheist is that they lack belief that god(s) exist. You may try to argue that this is because they are "without God", but that implies that God exists, which you can't demonstrate, prove, or even provide adequate argument in support of. Instead you simply to revert to "that's because you are without God". You do nothing but excuse your own position from interrogation.
    But you are wrong in that it is very much a strawman. You cherry-pick attributes from what various atheists say and slap them to your caricature. You argue against that caricature, the strawman. This is evidenced by your zero for four efforts above. You struggle to comprehend the agnostic atheist mindset. Your strawman is the only thing you do understand, but it has limited applicability to the reality of atheists.
    I know. Can you prove God exists? No? One reason may therefore be because God does not exist, right?
    Non sequitur. Just because Jake Walkinshaw does not exist for you does not mean that there is nothing to prove should you wish his existence to be proven to you.
    Why should I accept a position that does not match my mindset, my thought process? Are you going to accept that God is simply a subjective viewpoint with no actual objective reality? I'd be okay with that if you wish to do so.
    You're not discussing. That much is patently obvious. As Baldeee has observed you turn the issue into a warzone. You take a defensive position and shoot from the hip, despite the willing of others to engage in peaceful dialogue. You therefore create hostility which you then stoke at every opportunity, especially when you have nowhere else to go.
    I don't turn on you, Jan. I turn on what you say, because it is inconsistent, fallacious, obstructive, evasive, and belligerent. There is also nothing yet to concede, as irrespective of what I actually say you simply revert to your strawman. Perhaps when you demonstrate that you can do more than that...?
    Yet you don't engage in the actual discussion. This thread is about atheism yet you seem unwilling to engage with what atheists actually say, but rather just stick to arguing against your strawman. If you sincerely want to do more then demonstrate it.
     
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Thor

    God is Thor

    He of the Cape and Big Hammer which only he can lift

    Paid up member of the League of Justice

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,353
    It moved for Cap'n America, though. Even if just slightly.
    Where do you stand on the matter of Loki? Is he merely a pretender, or one of the pantheon?
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Loki?

    To dark good looking

    Pretender

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    You dudes must have immersed in theology hardcore.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Sometimes the Lightly Dark Side has advantages

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    You're correct that as far as I'm aware God does not currently exist.

    I require evidence because I prefer my beliefs to be grounded in something real. I'm a rationalist. I believe in reason, and therefore evidence.

    The only alternative would be to hold irrational beliefs.

    Again, you've failed to read what I wrote, or else you choose to ignore it. I said there is evidence that people put forward to argue for God's existence, but it is very weak and subjective.

    Of course, if you claim that everything is God, then the fact that anything exists counts as evidence for you. But then you're not really talking about God; you're simply redefining the term "God" to mean "the universe", in effect. I agree with you that the universe exists.

    We're talking about an all-powerful being here. I think he could choose to make some evidence available if he existed. Don't you?

    God, being an omnipotent being, would necessarily be incomprehensible to any human being, theist or atheist.

    What you're really suggesting here is that I'm somehow unable to perceive God - I lack the required "God sense", or something.

    And, yes, that's possible. Who knows, maybe this all-powerful God of yours has Created me in such a way that I am unable to perceive him. Maybe he did that to punish me for sins in a past life, or something. It's all possible. Just very implausible.

    Tut tut, Jan!

    You chopped off half of what I wrote there. That's dishonest of you. So, go back and assemble the full quote, and try responding to that, including the half you don't like. Don't just pretend it wasn't there.

    According to you, we're all God, or parts of God. Isn't that right? How, then, can anybody be "without God", according to you?

    For a "true" theist, like you claim to be, God plays a very significant role in their life. They think about God. They act with God in mind. They pray to God or otherwise worship him. They "live their life by their belief".

    Atheists obviously don't live their lives by God, because they don't believe in God. They might well be interested in the "big questions" of existence, but for them God is not the answer (or is only one possible and unproven answer). They don't spend their time in worship or prayer. They don't worry about what the invisible man in the sky might think about their actions; their morality is (possibly) based on something other than fear of punishment or a need to please an authority figure.

    Atheists don't, by and large, have recurring thoughts like: "I'm buying fish and chips right now. But God probably doesn't exist." They don't live their lives by their belief that God (probably) doesn't exist. The theist, on the other hand, might well think "I'm buying fish and chips right now. And that's good because God will approve of my not eating red meat on a Friday" or whatever.

    I agree with what Baldeee wrote regarding this, above.

    You don't need to accept points on which you disagree, Jan. But you do need to discuss things in good faith, if you are to have a productive discussion at all. Ignoring points that don't fit your narrative isn't discussing things in good faith. Never attempting to justify your own position is not discussing things in good faith.

    I think you're right on one thing, though. Unless good faith is forthcoming from you, the best option for me might well be to move on an cease engaging with you.

    No, that's wrong. A person who is without compassion can understand what compassion involves. He or she simply does not feel compassion. Similarly, an atheist can understand what belief in God involves. He simply does not believe in God himself. Nor does he feel God's presence, or whatever, and I think that kind of feeling is a central part of the God experience for many theists.

    Also, you're committing your usual fallacy again here by asserting that there's "existence for you" and "existence for me", without acknowledging the element of objective existence. Compassion objectively exists as a phenomenon, regardless of the fact that some people lack compassion.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    (continued...)

    Nonsense. You would never believe you were having a conversation with someone who did not exist.

    You're back to defining the universe to be God.

    If God is different from the universe, you need to explain the sense in which God is different from the universe, or from you or me. And you need to tell us how we can find this God and see that he is distinguishable from the universe.

    Yes, it is.

    Existence is an all-or-nothing thing. Either you've got it, or you ain't got it. So, if God exists, he exists in the same way that newspapers exist. And if he doesn't exist, then his non-existence is the same as the non-existence of my great Aunt Hermoine.

    There aren't "levels" of existence. It's a binary concept.

    I disagree. In fact, as you know, I have had direct personal experience of believing in God. So I have a fair idea what that's like. Compare, if you like, your "compassion" example. Never mind that you're wrong on that, but even on your own terms I can understand belief in God. Because I've been there.

    I'm happily embracing the idea that I don't believe that God exists right now, Jan - quite successfully, I think!

    But I have a problem with your "without God" terminology for reasons I've explained at length above. I don't embrace the idea that God exists and I'm merely rejecting him (for reasons unknown to myself) or that God exists and he's specially made me so that I can't detect him. In the first instance, I really am open-minded about the whole God thing; there's no reason for me to reject God, especially if he's as obvious as you say he is. In the second instance, there seems to me to be no rational reason why this God of yours would go to special effort to deny me the wondrous experience of Him that you have. Ah, but then God works in mysterious ways, perhaps?

    Anyway, if I'm stuck, I'm stuck, I guess. I can go no further, as you say. Does that mean God has failed with me? I mean, it's not my fault I don't believe in him, as far as I can see. He could do a much better job of it if he really wanted me to believe.

    I'm not going to attempt to teach you Critical Thinking 101 in this thread, Jan. Sorry.

    At the end of the evaluation process!

    Actually, to tell you the truth, Jan, my conclusion is only provisional. I've already told you that. I'm quite willing and ready to change my mind if new and convincing evidence comes to light at any point.

    A lot (most?) of my personal beliefs are like this. I strive for epistemological consistency, wherever possible.

    If that's all it means, then I'm cool with that.

    But I still have that niggling feeling that you really want "without God" to mean "they don't believe in God, yet God exists". That "God exists" part is tacitly contained in your "without God", as I previously explained. God has to exist in order for atheists to fail to believe in him, according to you.

    I do think that if God doesn't exist, then God universally doesn't exist for everyone, regardless of whether they happen to believe he exists. That is, God's existence or non-existence is universal. There's no "existence for you" vs "non-existence for me". We've been through that.

    Yes and no.

    Yes, in the sense that the default assumption for the existence of any X is that X probably doesn't exist. That's the starting point. Then, if there's evidence that X does exist after all, we go from there.

    No, in the sense that atheists don't have an a priori conclusion that God does not exist. The conclusion is not "imported" - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Investigating the question honestly demands that we keep both possibilities open at the start - that God exists, and that God does not exist.

    To some people more than others. And about some things more than others.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  18. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    If you carry on you missed out a "o" in the god word

    Have good sense

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    and become a Thesist Thorian

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Sorry you feel that way about it.

    In this case "Is" is used as a verb.

    Jan.
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Not really. A fact must be known, or proved to be true.
    God is the source of our ability to know, and to discriminate. God is the source of that we wish to know.

    What is your reason for being an atheist?

    Jan.
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    This is what it means to be without God.

    Jan.
     
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    No worries. I can commit suicide - like elephant tranquilizer 10 000x more potent then heroine - I feel sorry for myself enough from peering into the incongruity.
     
  23. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    So you don't know that God is?
    If you know (or even if you just claim to know) then you are claiming "God is" to be a fact.
    Since "to be" means "to exist", you are thus claiming "God exists" to be a fact.
    So enough already of your claptrap!
    The efforts you go to in your desire not to have to acknowledge your inconsistencies are remarkable, even if the end result for you is simply to reveal the depths of nonsense you are prepared to plummet to.

    Now if only you focused that effort on being consistent in the first instance.
    It might save you from having to post the utter catastrophe that you do.
     

Share This Page