Let me approach this in a different way. Instead of arguing about proof of God, which tend to bottleneck the discussion, focus on each side of the argument; atheism and theism, accepting their premises of their position, and then compare the impact on behavior. This approach is similar to some people accepting the premises of conservatism versus the premises liberalism and how it impacts behavior and their perception of the world. Neither can prove their position as being absolute truth. However, accepting either position has an impact on perception and behavior. In current times, the left is far more angry and unhappy. You become a reflection of what you believe. One observation about atheism is you don't have to be rational to be an atheist. The only thing you need to do is chant there is no God. You can have no education, but if you work under the assumption there is no God, you are a card holding atheist. What attracts the irrational atheists to atheism? One answer is, atheism is easier than theism, since there are fewer restrictions over impulse and less will power is expected of you. The theist may have to restrict diet out of fear of the sin of gluttony. This develops will power and control over impulse using an abstraction, even when nobody is looking.The atheist does not have any fear of gluttony being a sin, since there is no divine judge in their belief system. There is less need to control impulse or use willpower unless the human herd create a human taboo that they can outwardly enforce. One does not need the same level of internal will power and choice. I began with religious education as a child ,and became more agnostic/atheist as a teenage. The reason was I wanted to indulge in life and not be restricted by guilt due to sin. I was trying to lower my level of willpower and allow myself to become more compulsive, such as chasing skirts and living in the moment. The argument of no proof of God, was my excuse not the real motivation. Another difference between atheism and theism is theism believes in powers that are higher than human; God. Whereas the atheism places humans at the top. This has different impacts on the personality. As an analogy, there is a different between a small child who thinks they are equal to their parents and a small child who places their parents higher up the level of knowledge and wisdom. The latter is more open to teaching. Having faith also makes it easier to think outside the box ,since God is outside the box of tangible proof. If you can accept the premise of God, you can accept all that is thought but not yet made manifest. Faith is the foundation of all new innovation at the beginning stage. The atheist needs proof, so they can't wander to far outside box; lack faith.
And your point here would be... what? Does one have to be rational to be a theist? Not really. False. You only need to not believe there is one. Nothing "attracts" people to atheism. People become atheists when they stop believing. So, in your opinion, people simply lose their belief in "god" because it's easier? Can you deliberately and wilfully stop believing (in anything) without getting data? Atheists, generally, don't worship anything. And, to extend your analogy: people grow and finally realise that their parents don't know everything aren't infallible. Further - is a child moral simply because he follows the rules that he's been told to follow (through fear of punishment) or is he more moral because he's decided that behaving in certain ways is the "right" way? The first is, effectively, an automaton - at best he can claim to behave morally (because he stays within the bounds dictated by someone else) but does that make the child himself a moral person? EDit: I call bullshit. You (claim that you) decided to be an atheist because you wanted to be a "sinner"? So how - EXACTLY - did you lose the belief that you (claim you) had? Unmitigated bollocks. For one thing, to a theist "god" is - by definition - NOT outside the box. Using the wording "tangible proof" is completely irrelevant in this case.
You have shown me the light. Thank you. Also, if I tell you what I have in my kitchen can you direct me through self FGM, my Obama Care wont cover it.
Bang, bang, bang goes your hammer! Is there any thread on this site where you don't try and hammer away at liberals, either directly or through analogy? Nor do you need to be rational to be a theist. The only thing you need to do is chant that there is a God, You can have no education, but if you work under the assumption there is a God, you are a card holding theist. What attracts the irrational theists to theism? Belief in the existence of God has no bearing per se as to behaviour. That would primarily be the religion one follows, if any. But it seems that you are of the opinion that it is religion that holds back the population from amoral behaviour. Do you only refrain from gluttony due to religion or belief in God? Do you honestly think it is the fear of the sin of gluttony that stops people eating themselves stupid?? Unfortunately the studies don't seem to bear that out. See www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/does-going-to-church-pack_1_b_1086159.html for a blog on the matter. I guess I will wait for the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to rear its head. I also disagree that it is easier to do things without a guidebook. Have you ever tried building an IKEA cabinet without? The easier thing is surely to relinquish responsibity for your direction to someone else. Did you ever actually lack belief that God existed, though, or did you just equate that activity with the activity of an atheist, and thus look for an excuse? If you didn't actually lack belief that God existed, if you always in the back of your mind believed that God existed, then you were not atheist. And if not then you merely used atheism as an excuse to justify your behaviour being out of line with your religion/actual beliefs. And while you think you need willpower not to eat too much because it's a sin, we atheists have willpower not to eat too much, but ours is driven by the desire not to get obese, to be able to stay in shape. Same result. Same willpower. Just different motivations. Sure, belief in God can undoubtedly help people, and thank God that some do believe in God because it seems that some are convinced that without it they would go on a murderous rampage... or maybe just eat a lot. But belief being beneficial is not the same as the tenet of that belief being the objective truth of the matter. Nope. Well, some may, but I would think most don't. I would think most would put the universe itself at the top of things we know about. The universe / laws of nature are capable of wiping us out in a moment. Heck, we can't even overcome our mortality, so how can we ever claim to be at the top? So, please, no more of this garbage. You think atheists are less open to learn? How weird. Utter garbage. All you need is an imagination. Believing in God could be seen as evidence of having one, but it is risible to conclude that lack of such belief or faith is an indication of lacking imagination. Just read any science fiction book. And there is a difference between thinking outside the box into realms of unprovable and unscientific areas, to think I outside the box on matters that have practical relevance.
The only reason theism needs to give a name to those who refute it is the unwarranted political power this idea has enjoyed for centuries. Lack of belief is actually the default position, since we are born that way, and at some point become convinced, conditioned, seduced, or bullied into accepting it at some point.
I think that the heart of the dispute between the theists and atheists concerns the literal objective existence of something corresponding to this word 'God'. We have a variety of propositions about 'God': 'God exists'. 'God doesn't exist'. And many others as well, attributing properties, purposes, cosmological functions or whatever to 'God'. The truth value of most of these propositions depends on whether or not the object of the propositions corresponds to anything, and on whether that something possesses the qualities and performs the functions attributed to it. Jan insists that 'Atheists are without God' or 'God does not exist for the atheist'. Of course if the word 'God' fails to correspond to anything beyond an idea in the believer's own head, then Jan can be said to be without God too, and God does not exist for Jan, either. Because if the atheists are right, then everyone is literally speaking 'without God', whether they subjectively believe in the existence of God or not. If it was true, then what meaning would the word 'atheist' retain? Presumably the word captures something. I'm inclined to say that 'atheists' are committed to some variant on 'God does not exist' (in the literal objective sense), simply by being an atheist. They vary a great deal on the force with which they assert the proposition (many hold it probabilistically), about what they take 'God' to mean (and hence on precisely what they are denying) and so on. And there are all kinds of ancillary beliefs that many/most atheists hold that aren't definitive of atheism but are nevertheless widespread among many but not all atheists - such that 'religion' is irrational, that it's a malign historical force, that science and religion are fundamentally opposed, or that society will be better off if religion is eliminated somehow.
While 'proof' is far too strong a word, I think that the literal objective existence of 'God' is the heart of the atheist/theist argument. I'm not sure where 'chant' came from, but otherwise I tend to agree with you. The atheist need only lean towards the truth of the proposition that 'God does not exist'. He or she needn't have any good reasons for leaning that way, and many don't. Of course exactly the same thing can be said about theists. They needn't have good arguments for their theism either, and most don't. So you seem to be describing the human condition. Most people adhere to beliefs that they can't provide sound justifications for. Maybe, or maybe not. Sometimes belief in God serves as kind of an emotional support. God works in mysterious ways. God is testing us. It was God's will. Belief in God allows us to connect any unpleasant thing that happens to an essentially benign narrative. That would seem to make the trials and tribulations of life a lot easier. I'm not convinced that all atheists have that kind of motivation. I certainly didn't, though I'm far more philosophical than most people, I guess. I don't think that an atheist has to be committed to the idea that human beings are the wisest beings in the universe. Again, I'm certainly not. For me, the whole purpose of humanity extending itself out into the stars is to learn. That's why I favor agnosticism over the pseudo-skeptical sort of debunkery. The pseudo-skeptics, just like the religious theists, think that they already have everything figured out and that they already understand the fundamental nature of reality. I don't think that any human being does. I'm more inclined to think that we are surrounded by mysteries at every moment. Every object of thought in our experience turns mysterious if we think about it for more than a few seconds. It was that realization that motivated my lifelong interest in philosophy (epistemology and especially metaphysics) and motivated my agnostic atheism. It's the recognition that we don't entirely understand things that motivates speculation and hypothesis formation. Not the belief that we already have the answers to all of the most important questions down pat. No, I'd say that faith is the foundation of living a practical life when nothing is entirely understood. We have to go with what we think is true, even if we can't conclusively justify it. But when it comes to intellectual inquiry, we have to be able to recognize that our underlying assumptions are merely that: assumptions, and be willing to question them.
I am right, God doesn't exist for you, so technically you don't have to make the claim. It comes as a default position for all atheists. You don't have to state it, it comes with the position. If God's existence is an unknown, then God does not currently exist for you. You're call for evidence shows this to be true. Alex was the one who claimed God does not exist, but he didn't have to. From once he identifies himself as an atheist, it is already incorporated. I can understand that you wouldn't know that, given your position. But it is. We don't experience unicorns. Not really. Nope. Never said it did. But now you brought it up, it is quite remarkable. What kind of support?
So you claim. Atheists don't. Therefore this is a claim about them that you have to support. And other than merely repeating it ad nauseam, you've come up rather short. So you claim. Not necessarily true. No, it doesn't. The call for evidence is to show that God definitely does exist. I'd also happily take evidence that shows God definitely doesn't exist. But there doesn't seem to be any. God's existence, for me, is an unknwon. I can not know if I am with God or without God. You claim the latter. Not me. Not necessarily. Only from the viewpoint of strong atheists, such as the strawman you continually build, is it incorporated. And they would specifically have to state that they believe God to not exist to be able to identify them as such. As you have been told over and over again, atheists are those who self-identify as lacking belief that God exists. Well, since you've said it is, who am I to disagree, eh! Sheesh, Jan, please do better. If you claim, you need to support that claim. And here you are just asserting, and then reasserting. If that's all you have then tell us and we can all save time here. Who says? On what basis do you think you don't experience unicorns? Then on what basis do you assert that it should be taken as the default? Then on what basis do you assert that it should be taken as the default? Not really. Anything which I considered rationally attributable only to the truth of the claim rather than any alternative hypothesis. If evidence X supports both claim A and alternate hypothesis B then it is not rationally attributable only to the truth of A. Thus I wouldn't accept claim A as true.
It appears to me that atheists are the modern bullies. Atheism is more like a parasite religion, that needs a host to give itself the semblance of life. Atheism defines itself based on what it is not and what it does not believe to be real; God. Any discussion of atheism always degenerates to what it is not. Religions are more self standing and don't need a scape goat to give itself the semblance of life. Give me the top 10 reasons to be an atheist that does parasite on religion in a negative way. Atheism is like the two year old child who learns the word "NO", and gains a sense of power negating everything the parents say. The child comes to a semblance of life when he can say no and deny something. He has no positive sense of life, where it creates its own unique platform based on neutrals and positives. Atheism appears to be modeled on the image of the critic who can't play sports, but becomes the self proclaimed expert on what actual players should and should not do. It is a negative mirror religion, not called a religion, since not a religion is the opposite therefore consistent with its negative foundation. Prove me wrong by presenting atheism as a self standing orientation of positives, that does not need negative prosthesis to stand up straight. One reason atheism may not present the positives is this makes you a potential host for parasites ,who will play the easier role of critic. Having ticks and fleas on you, gets tiring. The religious people are more used to carrying the weight of parasites, since religion give more inner energy due to the potential with the ego. The Christian virtue of turning the other cheek takes a strong sense of self, since it makes you vulnerable to parasite, who will inflate themselves, at your expense, knowing you will need to allow it. Religion has a foundation of life that can support parasites and yourself. Those who do this on the largest scale are called Saints. Does atheism have anything like a Saint, who gives more than they take?
I think you're the one projecting. Ya know, every thread, no matter the subject, you always go after 'liberals'. Pot - kettle - black kinda' deal. With the one word 'agnostic' all your and Jan's bluster crumbles. :EDIT: Remember saying this, man: Tell those liberals, those atheists, and little fuzzy kittens how they are all EVILl!
Who are we bullying? Religion is the parasite. Needs believers 1 to 10 Prove god exist You can place them in any order you wish Atheism is not a religion let alone a negative religion It is not in opposition to religion Who sends out salespeople to join religion? Who sends out salespeople to join atheists? Since I wouldn't buy soap powder from my doorstep to wash my clothes why would I buy religion to clean my soul? I have no idea what this means???? Allowing parasites on your body makes you sick Religion goes out of its way to attract parasites That's called self inflicted injury and is even sicker than allowing the parasites to stay Does atheism have anything like a Saint, who gives more than they take? Yes Their called Scientist Also atheists have one big parasite called religion which we can't get rid of Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jan, there is only one truth. There is no such thing as existing "for you". This is called the fallacy of special pleading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading It means your position is intellectually bankrupt and you lost this debate.
Then clearly you don't know any history. Wong on both counts, neither parasite nor religion. This is, in its entirety, complete bollocks. Atheism MUST have a"positive sense of life, where it creates its own unique platform" - by virtue of the fact that it denies the diktats laid out by religions. See above: "atheism", such as it is has to define its own rules. Religion - or more precisely those who subscribe to a religion - has nothing "self standing" about since they accept some (unseen, unevidenced un-just-about-everything-else) authority as the arbiter of "correct behaviour". Because religion itself is a parasite. Here's a check on whether atheism is parasitic or not: get rid of all religion and see who is most affected. Atheists will simply carry on as before with the sole difference of not having to point out the fallacies (and arrogated privileges) of believers. Please try to keep the utter crap out of the discussion.
Nothing wrong correct Just I've never come across them Not seen any of the religious bent for some years Last time they tried I was running around late for a meeting I think I told them something like I was under contract to the devil and if I could convert some religious people to his cause I would gain a lot of money If they would wait I would explain it to them when I got back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree that on discussion boards like this one, atheists often are. They like to pretend that they are more intelligent and better educated than their opponents, but they typically aren't. They like to talk down, but that arrogance is often unjustified. Of course I'm an atheist myself, in a way (since I tend to be very doubtful about the literal ontological existence of the conventional divine figures like Yahweh, Krishna and Allah) so that puts me in a delicate position. I prefer to identify as an agnostic, which I think is a more intellectually justifiable position than atheism. I think that's true too. Atheists vary a great deal among themselves on what concept of 'God' they are denying. Most in the US and Europe are reacting against Christianity and its vision on the divine. In the Muslim world (where being an atheist can be a death-penalty offense) the deeply-closeted atheists are deniers of the literal existence of Allah and are reacting against Islam. In India, they are denying the divinities of the diverse Hindu traditions. So there's an interesting element of cultural-specificity to atheism depending on what kind of religious environment it's reacting against. But even here in the West, there's a big difference between denying Christianity and its Yahweh, Christ or Holy Spirit, and denying the philosophical 'God' of (some of) the ancient Greek philosophers, the fulfiller of the metaphysical functions of first-cause, creator of everything that is, sustainer of reality from moment to moment and so on. So I think that atheism would probably still exist in a more cerebral and less angry and emotional form if Christianity and the other theistic religions never existed. Without the religions, atheism would probably blend together with agnosticism regarding these kind of metaphysical issues and would be the denial that the unknown solutions to the metaphysical problems should be personalized as a divine person.
Cite quote? You don't because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. And if I don't..." therefore God does not exist? Jan
So it is. I have repeatedly supported it. God does not currently exist for any atheist. Does God Exist as you read this post? No? Then it is true. How do you know that you CAN NOT know God? Lacking belief in something that does not exist, is done because that thing doesn't exist. So the whole reason for your position is because God does not exist as far as you're aware There's no getting round it. You should tell that to Alex. You did say you wouldn't mind evidence of God's non existence. None. Natural. I can see why you would deny it, given your position, and the bulldogish way you defend it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! K. Jan.
