The original meaning of the term 'atheist' is the reason behind the above, modern version. It is omitted because of the implication. I don't interpret the atheist world view. It s what it is. A world without God. If you are without God, then at that moment God does not exist, for the atheist. From there you can concoct all kind of reasonings, if you wish the judge your position, the true one. Beliefs are real. We don't just up and believe something because we feel, or prefer it. When you believe something, it is based on something. There is no evidence, for God, as far as you're aware. If you were able to comprehend what would constitute evidence for God, you wouldn't be atheist. The problem is, you are currently unable to comprehend God, or anything to do with God. You are in dark so to speak. You can twist and turn it all you like, it makes no difference. You still cannot comprehend God. All you can do is make silly comments (some atheists in general, including yourself) , and talk about stuff that has nothing to do with the subject, and trying to give the impression that you are above even though the he notion. Everything we perceive is subjective, so don't come with that. That's bullsh-t, and you know it. You're basing God not being real on the strength of what your senses inform. Why? I've asked you what would constitute evidence of God for you, and you can't give a serious answer. Yet you are saying there's no evidence for God. Tell me in all seriousness what you have learned about God, from scripture. And I don't mean your interpretation of the genesis account. I mean about God's nature, character, personality, aspects, and so on. Let's see reasoning behind your assertions. That is true, but that's not all. I think it's time to discuss God as a serious proposition, by first stop with the comedy, mocking, and adhominems. Jan.
Don't think there has been an real argument or even a reasonable discussion More of a kids Na Na your wrong I'm right PingPong And it seems to be coming to a conclusion that BOTH prospectives are correct So it moves from sublime to ridiculous Both CANNOT be correct in anyway shape or form from ANY perspective How to crack such an impasse Lets turn to the beloved word in Science and the scourge of conspiracy believers EVIDENCE I'll stop now because this ground has been covered before Pistols at 10 paces might be an option??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Con is almost THE perfect word for all religions It falls short of covering those who operate under the impression THEY are NOT operating a con No religions in the world would increase, at a faster rate, our understanding of the world I would hope less wars Fighting over whoes invisible god can piss up the wall the highest is a stupid reason to go to war Wanting something tangible and assets a better reason Cooperation to lift both you and adversary even better To aid cooperation really required a deep understanding of Darwin and all the follow up However while ' We didn't come from monkeys. We are special. We have a soul ' holds sway I contend cooperation is handicapped Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes and we are left with the modern version in the dictionary. See it how you will but I happen to think my words were profound. I try not hide who I am but can not control what impression I give out. Forgive me Jan I was under the impression you had not reached that conclusion. Still I see no harm in bring it up. Please stay calm. Please don't use profanity when addressing me Jan I don't like its use I hope you can respect my wishes. It indicates I am upsetting you. That is not my intention. You said I said god is not real whereas I said God is real. My sences comprise of touch (feeling via physical contact) hearing seeing smelling but I did not use them to rationalise my beliefs. I did not learn anything about God but I learnt about men and their ability to wish for things to be better. Sorry Jan I try but I fail at times. Alex
I think its about money for those starting war and religion is used to bring the mob on board. However I generalise and to do so often contributes nothing. But when I have nothing to say I do so and cover it well. Alex
There was a time when the system indulged trial by battle the belief being that god would support right and ensure the party who was right would be victorious. Alex
Jan go ahead. Without saying you have done so before perhaps tell me why you believe that God is a serious proposition. I promise not to mock, employ comedy or indulge in adhoms. Alex
The above image shows a man and a woman and I recall reading an account of a woman being successful. Alex
Why is that surprising? Some women are nearly as good as actual people. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What makes you think that system does not operate today??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have known some wild men in my time full of bravado and often you hear them saying to the effect that if that dude messes with them they will break their legs..none of them ever did and yet I met a girl who did break a mans legs smashing them repeatedly with a car door. On another matter she was charged with assault for throwing a car bonet at a chap who made too much noise to her liking. The magistrate said you can do something like that you cause serious injury. She shouted "serious injury? I was trying to kill him" They did not change the charge to attempted murder however. She is one of those poor folk with bipolar and officialdom just avoids dealing with her. Alex
You contradict yourself. You haven't made any useful contribution to this thread since you started contradicting yourself. You need to go back and resolve that. The obvious reason is that God is only in your head. You need to demonstrate otherwise. Sorry bud. That was all you. You confirmed that we are both talking about the objective existence of God. You acknowledge that he doesn't exist for some, yet not for others. That is not objectivity. You have contradicted yourself. you can;t contribute meaningfully until you resolve your contradiction. No. Counter-intuitively, we rationalists have a lot more to discuss about the concept of god than you believers. You've said your peace - God Is. That's not even a meaningful sentence. But you have nothing else - no evidence, no logic to back it up, nothing but your faith. We rationalists have a lot to chew on as to why so many people believe in superstition, and eschew rational examination of the world. God is ... a concept. God is ... a superstition. God is ... an act unproveable faith. God is ... possibly existent, much like Santa and the Easter Bunny. Now it's a sentence. A sentence is a single, complete thought.
You are basing your reason on a lack of evidence, but how you know there is a lack of evidence when you cannot comprehend God. Then there is the question 'what are you prepared to accept as evidence of God?' If you cannot answer that question, what is the point of concluding there is no evidence, then believing you have a point? The only rational position to consider is that you cannot comprehend God, so as far as you're aware, God does not exist. Apologies for coming across as angry. I meant it to come across as stern, but not angry. It is not a conclusion I reached, it is the way things are. Which is why great minds came up with a system of acquiring objective knowledge (scientific method), the best way. But that works with matter, and matter related stuff. It is limited to that alone. We're discussing spiritual matters. You cannot use that principle to advance. For example walking is a physical act. It is systematic, methodological, mathematical, logical, and all that stuff. But once you can walk, you don't need to recall that. You just up and go. What you do with this physical capability, is beyond the function itself. In the same way, comprehending God is beyond our physical capability. Just knowing the periodic table, or archaeological triumph, is not what it takes, anymore than learning to walk will make you a successful olympic athlete. So if you don't take to really try and understand what is meant by 'God', you will be just like the lazy fat kid who can't understand why he is not an Olympic champion. After all, he really wanted to be one. Sorry. But you may as well of said God isn't real, because God is only in the mind. I accept that God is "real" in the mind, but from that understanding you can calculate, that God Is. Everything is an expression of God's energies. We (humans) are finite reflections of God and His energies. It may look like we just decide to believe in God, for comfort, or out of fear (and there is nothing wrong with taking shelter of God), but it is a lot deeper than that. Then again, all relationships appear simple until you begin to dig deeper. So rather than just say it, please explain it. Then please learn something, because if you become exposed to what I got exposed to, at the very least you would have respect for this subject matter. It is great. You've never talked about God (in this forum at least), so you have yet to fail. Jan.
I take from that you think that first I develop some sort of mental picture of God and give him attributes and then armed with my mental picture and comprehension of God I then seek evidence that fits the mental picture. So I form this mental picture,as no doubt the ancients did, where I give my made up God attributes of power to do anything and say this God could have created the universe and I observe the universe is there I therefore have my evidence that God exists....? Or do you suggest I read scriptures where someone else presents their comprehension of God, no less imagined and no less made up, and happily and uncritically accept their concept that God created the Universe and armed with their version observe the universe is there and say I have my evidence. I can imagine that approach in court. "Your Honor we can imagine that whoever committed the robbery would look a sneaky type and if you look at the defendant he is certainly a very sneaky type and therefore guilty". Or is my parallel somehow different? Or is it like profiling? God must be powerful and creative and being powerful and creative he could create the universe ...I now have my evidence? Jan perhaps you have fallen victim to the second approach I entertained above. You read a scripture which describes God as this and that and you are swayed by that made up work, (and be clear it is made up and issues from the mind of a man with no evidence that his work was influenced by God or the bottle, but I would pick the bottle because folk can say strange stuff when out of it,) and armed with a notion you found in an ancient work, you seek and declare the universe is clear evidence of God, the creator described in the book you just read. That can work for you Jan and that is OK but I see grave flaws in that approach. Me I observe the Universe and say I find no evidence suggestive of anything and can happily believe it was always here needing no explanation of creation. And of course this approach does not even need a big bang. But someone then presents the big bang theory in an effort to explain the observations. How can I define what evidence I would accept Jan when as you point out I have no comprehension of God. However the onus is not upon me to define acceptable evidence. You prosecute the case for the existence of God the burden of proof is with you, it is up to you not me to present evidence and to make sure that evidence proves what's er it is that you wish to prove. You ask what do I want my reply is simply is what have you got. Is there anything in my approach that is unreasonable. Well that may seem rational to you Jan that you draw a conclusion that as I can't comprehend God, which I hasten to point out is no more than an irrelevant and unsupported belief, that it is because of that flawed approach I can not rationally conclude God does not exist. I can conclude God does not exist because the concept appears out of scriptures which offer no evidence that they hold any status higher than fictional works written by ancient folk who explained a world they did not understand by resorting to inventing Gods. Men created God..God did not create men....and unfortunately Jan that is so far what the evidence tells us very clearly. I joyfully accept your apology but point out being stern will lend no authority or credibility to your argument. I am sorry to have to call upon you to be correct but it is indeed a conclusion that you have reached. A I lost the ability to walk properly, such that after the operation on my back I did I'm fact have to learn again how to walk. And I think many folk find themselves in that situation. Jan I have tried and there was a time I thought there was something to it. Getting personal I believe there was a time where I was where you are now. So why did I give up on the concept? In truth I could see that I had become delusional and that there was absolutely no evidence of the existence of any God. And that the scriptures had been written by, although well meaning, folk who were delusional. I formed a belief that to use a God to explain things was an abdication of accepting personal responsibility and avoid really thinking for myself. I feel like a veil of confusion was lifted such that I could function better having thrown off delusion and unsupportable superstitious beliefs. And having been through it Jan that is why I engage here. Out of anyone who currently believes I see you as the only one who may work it out like I did and escape the delusion, and I am not trying to be unkind it is what it is and having been there can call it delusion and I am not trying to pull an adhom on you. It is my belief you will one day come out on the other side and understand what I say to you. But I believe you will be better, the morals stick, the peace remains, you will understand what the scripture writers were trying to do. It will be better when you get there it is a state of bliss that I can only hint about..its a relief, a deep exhale, a knowing that you have arrived. You know how you feel now..even better than that. I respect the attempt and of course it is a helpful stepping stone to full understanding but a time comes where one needs to use what you learn and grow even further its sort of learning to walk by yourself and confidently. I was referring to my failure to always present as respectful just because I feel that I am always respectful I can not ignore that others can interprets my actions as lacking respect so I fail to make sure my respect is not just internal but I show to the world that I take the time to demonstrate respect. Alex
Please forgive Amy spelling errors or mistakes I typed all that with my thumb and I hope any one reading can pick out what it is I am trying to say. Alex
Rationality does not work that way. Evidence is extant; it is there to see. So show it. (This is rhetorical. You won't.) Again: cart before the horse. Evidence first, analysis second. These are the excuses of someone who has nothing to show. Jan, there is an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You, Jan, can't see it because you, Jan, don't have the right attitude to see it. I can't even begin to describe it to you because you are adragonist and could never comprehend it. That's your loss.
I had one of those But I forgot to clip his invisible wings I guess he flew away but because no-one can see him I won't get him back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
