In regards to atheism.

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

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    So subjective.
    The truth is neither simple nor complex.
    Establishing the objective truth is the difficulty.
    And everything you have written is with regard mere subjective truth, which is no indication of the objective truth of God's existence or not.
    The subjective is the objective merely filtered through our personality.
    It is trivially true that the filters we apply are inaccurate, can be fundamentally opposed given the same objective truth etc.
    So if all you can do is express the subjective view then we will get nowhere with regard to understanding the objective.
    All we are left with is our subjective view, which does very well for us pretty much all of the time for all of us.
    Not at all.
    I accepted God from an early age.
    Was brought up believing, and did believe.
    You will undoubtedly deny that and say that I never truly believed.
    But through critical thought I came to acknowledge the unknowability of God within a closed universe.
    The rest, as they say, is history.
    How is that souring the discussion?
    The ego is fairly well used term in psychology, and satisfying the ego is a strong driving force for much of what we do, but is no sign of correctness, truth, accuracy etc.
    Then please provide some evidence, without recall to a circular argument (by which I do mean along the lines of "God is defined as X, thus everything is evidence of X, thus God exists").
    I just don't like circular arguments.
    Care to offer something that doesn't include any?
    We know that the scriptures are human endeavours in as much as it was Man that wrote them - the physical act of writing.
    Are you denying this?
    The information itself... we can not know.
    Hence we should not equate it with "natural phenomena" unless we are going to equate all of human activity with the same.
    To equate it so would otherwise be an a priori assumption.
    The ego is that which tries to make sense of reality - it's our judgement, cognition, memory, intellect etc.
    Any unproven / unprovable explanation that satisfies our ego will be accepted.
    This is how we seem to work.
    Acceptance of when something is merely satisfying our ego rather than being objectively true is when we can step back and not let our ego hinder us in our search for that objective truth.
    Your explanation, that it "gives an explanation of the very things that interest us at a deep level" smacks of acceptance of the explanation due to satisfying the ego.
    Or you're not explaining yourself clearly enough, or, heaven forbid, you are merely arguing cyclically.
    Well, we've certainly limited it to one of four options.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Wisdom is bleek a word from the lies.

    2 corinthians 11:14 Satan masqurades as an angel of light.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why masquerade?

    Lucifer means morning star.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    in the comic books
     
  8. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    What comic books?
     
  9. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    Baldee

    The only facts that are not subjective are the ones that are created outside of time, because they have no variations.
     
  10. BrianHarwarespecialist We shall Ionize!i Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    869
    After the war these petty misconceptions will be resolved. The offsprings of the different factions are in maturation. This complex strategizing of different ancestors of different factions will continue the story that exist outside time, this is what all forms of existence is measured against. Please increase the noise so that they can hear us these biengs, the last of them to come the ones that are the closest to the Prime.
     
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    What do you mean by "created outside of time"?
    It is an objective fact that on 1st November 2015 (as measured by the people in the US) Barack Obama is the President of that country.
    This is an objective fact.
    It doesn't matter who you are, where you are, when you are... it is an objective fact - it does not change.
    It may not be a fact we can all establish, but it is a fact.
    It corresponds to reality, and is independent of who, where, when you are.

    Maybe this fact would classify as what you call "created outside of time"?

    A subjective "fact", on the other hand, is one that is dependent upon who you are, where you are, when you are etc.
    And all of Jan's explanations suggest only subjectivity.
     
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    How is it possible to know whether the information is true, unless you accept it.
    Critical-errr thinking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Of course they don't. Because God doesn't exist (for them).
    It's very difficult to comprehend something, that in your mind, doesn't exist.
    That is the starting position. That atheist has nothing to decipher the non existence of God but his world view. That world view includes denying all information about God.

    Remember - the information is already here. As far as we know, it wasn't constructed by any man, plus there is no actual reason to deny it.

    What's wrong with that? God claims He is the original cause of all causes, logically it follows that everything is evidence of God.
    What reason can you come up with which makes that logic illogical, or unreasonable?
    I assume you play the there's no evidence card. If so you'll need to show what would be regarded as evidence of God's claim, or what evidence is there that the claims are false, or a human hoax.

    jan.
     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    But is it correct?
    If not, what is the correct evaluation?

    And you really think you provide nothing but objective reasoning?
    This whole evaluation is purely subjective.

    If we remark on the beauty of a sunset, the sun is the objective, and the remark is the subjective. We do not remark on the beauty of something that does not exist.
    You can not remark on God, because God doesn't exist (for you) and for some reason you cannot accept that for others He may exist.
    You are quite arrogant in that you think you know the whole of reality.

    What was the object of you acceptance (other than the name)?
    What was your experience of God?
    What was the objective reasoning that made you understand that God does not exist .

    So subjective.
    Here is a chance to impress me with your objectivity.
    Where/what is the objective reality of these confident claims?

    That's not my reasoning at all, that is what you need it to be, lest you have nothing to talk about.
    I can't give you the evidence that I think you require, any more than I can show the actual contents of love. I could reason with you, talk about what I have learned about the nature of the self, and show you my insights (not much, but there are realisations). But you wouldn't accept it.

    But the reality is, no one can make you accept, or belief anything, you have to do that for yourself. Objective reality is a no brainer, subjective reality is where everything takes place. Without subjective reality, we can be nothing but objects. Without object reality, we have nothing be subjective about. They are inseparable.

    This is a meaningless reply, but don't worry I won't tell anyone.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I meant to say: Your position is simple, you don't accept God, but in order to justify it, you have bring God to your level, hence there must be evidence, like we have evidendce of dinosaurs. This is denying the information, with utmost intention, with [no ]comprehension of what it is you are denying.
    You have to deny it, to maintain your position, hence it is you who require ego rubs.

    My bad.

    Why would I deny it?

    We ''CAN NOT KNOW" heh?
    How is it that you know the limits of knowledge?
    Why keep such greatness to yourself.
    As you are a critical thinker please use objective knowledge to answer this question.

    Remember. You confidently claim ''we can not know'' the source of this information.

    I can see your logic. But there are things you're not taking into consideration, namely, the actual information.

    Looking at it objectively (or as objective as one can), without adding ones own opinion. The subject matter is beyond human comprehension (lest he/she be told).

    How is it that humans can manifest something so profoundly and comprehensibly, that is beyond our (human) comprehension.

    It's not as if we have rivalled or surpassed that. It permeates all societies (in some aspect or other, because the information entertains all aspects of human existence).
    IOW, it kind of seems totally complete to me, and all we're left with is the choice to deny or accept it.

    To me it is natural phenomena because I have no idea, nor is there any objective evidence, that can explain the all encompassing information contained within it.
    They are more than just writings on paper/walls/etc...
    That is how I see it.

    Again I would be interested in seeing the objective knowledge that is behind this confident claim. To me it is subjective. But for you subjective is a dirty word when it comes to knowledge (objective knowledge being the truth everyone, no exception, can rely on).

    I'll throw in some basic dictionary definitions so that we're on the same page:

    Objective - (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    Remember a fact is the truth according to you.

    Subjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

    jan.
     
  14. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Catching the tail end of this thread....interesting. Objective and subjective thinking being considered here? It would seem that where there is an observer, the facts are always subjective to his/her ability to perceive them. If we were infallible, I might take it on faith that men could answer all the questions of life, but we are limited by our own mortal shortcomings. I give men credit for observing and describing the universe, yet I'm not willing to conclude they hold all the answers.
     
  15. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Accepting it doesn't mean you will ever know it is true, other than from a subjective point of view.
    The objective reality may well be unknowable.
    You seem to be assuming a subjective truth equates to objective.
    It doesn't.
    They may be the same, but you can not know that.
    The atheist can use exactly the same information that the theist uses.
    They just apply critical thought to the matter and may conclude that it's a valid theory but without any ability to gauge the soundness of the claims.
    And it is entirely possible to comprehend that which does not exist - or at least exist in reality.
    Any imaginary entity can be comprehended in its entirety if adequately detailed.
    So the atheist has exactly the same information available to them as the theist.
    They just don't believe it to be true.
    As far as we know it was constructed by Man.
    And to assume otherwise is an a prior assumption.
    You seem to want underestimate what Man is capable because that enables you to assign a divine cause to the information.
    Perhaps you have any argument, other than an argument from personal incredulity, that supports your "no actual reason to deny it"?
    Oh, it's logical, and it's logically valid once you accept the a priori assumption that God exists.
    Hence it is circular.
    Likewise one can argue: "God doesn't need to exist... everything that exists thus does so without the need for God to exist... thus God does not need to exist".
    I do not know what would be regarded as evidence.
    I am an agnostic.
    I think God is unknowable.
    If I thought there was evidence that I could attribute to God then God would become knowable.
    I don't think there is such evidence.
     
  16. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    It only has subjective existence: there is no objective existence.
    Without something to hold the subjective existence there is no existence.
    If you hold that all life is able to hold subjective existence of something then before life arose there was no such existence.
    That is the correct evaluation, as I see it.
    Of course it is subjective.
    It is my opinion.
    But just because I can't prove or disprove God's existence doesn't mean that your reasoning is correct.
    We can do.
    If we laugh at a pun, that is subjective, as it depends on understanding the language.
    I can remark on God because I am aware of God as a concept if nothing else.
    For that I have the same information about God in terms of writing available to me as anyone else does.
    It is the same way that I can remark on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, on Celestial Chinaware et al.
    I don't think that at all.
    There are some things we can not know, and an infinite number of things I personally don't know.
    Some objective, some subjective.
    The original cause of all.
    Comfort, mostly.
    I don't think that God does not exist.
    Again, you seem to confuse me with a strong atheist.
    Yes.
    That you seem to be believing simply to satisfy your ego?
    Or that that is the driving force of much of what we do?
    It is purely a subjective view.
    That has been part of your reasoning and continues to be part of your reasoning.
    Even in the post previous to this you ask: "What's wrong with that? God claims He is the original cause of all causes, logically it follows that everything is evidence of God."
    No, I probably wouldn't accept it, because everything you would describe would be purely subjective.
    Indeed - and I have expressed how difficult I think it is for anyone to jump on or off the cycle that it requires.
    I am on neither the cycle of believing God to exist nor the cycle of believing God not to exist.
    I can't imagine myself ever leaping onto one or other of the cycle, but never say never.
    And...?
    Does that mean we should jump on board whatever our subjective view suggests to us might be the objective truth?
    It's only meaningless to someone who doesn't know what a circular argument is, which would certainly explain your proclivity.
    My position is indeed simple: I don't know whether God exists objectively or not.
    It certainly exists subjectively for some people - your arguments are evidence of that.
    It doesn't exist subjectively for me, that much is true - but I don't have the belief that God therefore does not exist objectively.
    I don't have to deny it to maintain my position, I maintain my position because God does not subjectively exist for me but, to reiterate, that does not mean I therefore believe that God does not exist objectively.
    Just checking.
    Well, maybe if we invent a time-machine that enables us to go back in time to when the scriptures were formulated and written, perhaps we will be able to know.
    If it helps, consider that I am speaking for our current ability.
    Because its origins are lost to us.
    It really is that simple.
    It is like we can not know what Shakespeare actually looked like in detail.
    We can not know where he was when he wrote (if indeed he even did) each of his plays and sonnets.
    Some knowledge simply disappears from what is obtainable.
    So you believe.
    You have evidence that it was always beyond human comprehension?
    Argument from personal incredulity.
    Permeates does not equate to being true.
    Subjectively desirable?
    Perhaps.
    Seems like an appeal to the satisfaction of the ego.
    Understood.
    But given that you "have no idea", why not just conclude "I don't know"?
    What is it that compels you to believe in that which you don't know.
    What I wrote would be subjective.
    It is my opinion.
    I do not consider subjective to be a dirty word - I just hopefully understand it for what it is.
    Close enough - although I would add in perspective to what is objective and subjective when referring to reality, as that is what we're discussing (the reality of whether or not God exists).
    An objective fact is the truth, yes.
    It equates to reality.
    If it is subjective then it only applies, unsurprisingly, to that subject, and does not equate to reality but only to that person's interpretation of reality.
     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    ''Acceptance'' is not the claim of knowledge. Acceptance is the state of mind that allows one to comprehend the claim of knowledge.

    No, it's you just trying to find another thing to distract the flow of discussion.

    The atheist (in his role as atheist) denies the information. They only seek to ridicule it (that's what it really boils down to) so that no one will take it seriously.

    Most atheist who frequent forums, or vocalise their world view, only pretend to use critical thinking. The conclusion most of them come to bears evidence of that.

    How do you imagine God to be?

    And why don't they believe? Because God doesn't exist (for them).
    How can they discern whether or not God exists, if in their mind, there is no evidence?
    How do they conclude that there is no evidence without knowing what God is?
    Why do they reject the scriptures, as opposed to really taking them on so they can understand, once and for all that God does not exist?
    What are you looking for?

    You have no evidence to support that opinion.
    Nothing today surpasses that information. No one person, or organisation is capable of producing something completely brand new.
    Anything that man accomplishes, eventually has to change as new ideas take shape. Yet the scriptures are as profoundly important, and relative today as it has always been. All great pieces of literature, music, art, science, find themselves chipping away at this subject in some way, never exceeding it. It's not evidence, I grant you that. But it does make one think.

    Oh really!
    That's your observation?

    It's not an a priori assumption if you look at the information objectively, without bias.
    You claim that there is no evidence for God, but you haven't tried to comprehend how it is that the claims of God could be true, outside of what you deem evidence to be. You go into this thing with atheist glasses. God will never exist in you world view, because God is what is what you make Him out to be (you make sure all scriptural information is not allowed), and with this straw man god, you define what is and what isn't regarded as evidence, or what is the correct way to ascertain knowledge. In this way God conveniently does not, and never will exist.

    I rest my case.

    jan.
     
  18. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,224
    So, let me get this straight:
    Spidergoat is an atheist and generally opposed to religion.
    Spidergoat is, however, defending monotheism as a facet of modernity and civilisation.
     
  19. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    One can comprehend the claim but it is the objective reality of that claim that is important, not the subjective.
    Don't flatter yourself, Jan.
    You accuse me of trying to distract the flow and then you spout this nonsense that is clearly due to a massive chip you have on your shoulder.
    If that is your view of atheists then why on earth do you bother posting in these forums?
    Do you enjoy being ridiculed, if that is how you view it?
    I couldn't care less what most atheists do.
    I'm not discussing about what most atheists do.
    If you want to discuss with "most atheists" rather than me, if that makes it easier for you, just tell me.
    Otherwise have the decency to discuss what is written, not what you think is written, not what you think motives are.
    Impersonal.
    Subjectively, no, he doesn't.
    But that doesn't mean they believe God doesn't exist.
    And it doesn't speak to the objective reality.
    You tell me.
    You're the one claiming God exists.
    They know enough to know that what they seek (objective confirmation) is either not possible or indiscernible from the situation if God does not exist (unless you follow a circular argument).
    Many do not reject the scriptures.
    But for others, once they realise the scriptures, as they understand them, offer only a subjective answer, they lose interest in them.
    An answer to the question of the objective existence of God.
    Man wrote the physical book.
    All books we have are books written and created by Man.
    Are you looking for special pleading merely because of antiquity.
    Why reinvent the wheel?
    Sure it makes one think, about how Man was quite surprising back then.
    Yes.
    Yes, it is.
    If you start with the a priori assumption that God does not exist, then the information is merely inspired writings by some very wise people.
    Nothing divinely inspired, and nothing within it would lead one to conclude that.
    I am an atheist.
    I can't read if I wear other prescriptions.
    Even you said "Neither side can convince the other of the rightfulness of their position. That is the reality of the situation." and now you seem to be criticising me for seeming to confirm what you yourself have said.
    Subjectively, perhaps not, even if I was to agree with the biased view of atheists that you portray.
    Well done, you've found me guilty of being an agnostic, someone who claims to have no knowledge of God and sees God as unknowable, and thus don't know what evidence might be presented that I would see as evidence for God.
    Maybe you should have realised that as soon as I mentioned that I was an agnostic?
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    You claim to know a lot about atheists. For example:

    This is a typical statement from you. However, it says nothing about how a person comes to hold a theistic or an atheistic world view in the first place. You seem to assume that people get "stuck" in one world view or the other, but you never really explain why a person would come to hold one view rather than the other.

    As far as I can tell from previous discussions we have had, you believe that atheists are atheists are atheists. That is, there's no such thing as a person who used to be a theist then at some point became an atheist. I'm not sure what you think about the possibility of going the other way - starting off as an atheist and later becoming a theist. Once a theist, always a theist? Once an atheist, always an atheist? Is that how it works for you, Jan?

    You say that God is accessible to everybody. You say God is in all of us and ready to talk to all of us if only we open ourselves to him, and so on. Why then, do you think it is that some people choose to close themselves off to the magnificent Creator of the Universe? Or, maybe they never actually choose that - they just start off closed and never get over it, so never come to know God. But if that's so, why do they start off closed off to God?

    What's the default position that a newborn child has regarding God? Is the child open to God or closed to God? Or do they merely have some kind of genetic predisposition to be open or closed to God when they later learn about the concept of God? And, given their initial position, is there any chance of ever changing their stance - from theist to atheist or vice versa? What would cause such a change (in either direction)? Are both types of change even possible?

    Every time you engage with a self-declared former Believer on this forum, you tell that person that, in fact, they never really believed in God, properly. This, you tell them, is because they never really opened themselves up to God properly, so they were never a real Scotsman (oops, theist).

    I am puzzled as to why all these athiests who claim have once believed in God never clicked into real, proper belief like True Believers like yourself did. Did God not like those atheists enough to reveal himself to them in a way that would convince them? Yet he did that for you, apparently. So, where is the difference? Is atheism a birth defect, or is there some other error that causes atheism?

    You might argue that atheists think they too good for God, or something along those lines, and therefore they deny his Wonderousness. But that still doesn't explain how the atheists became so arrogant and blind to the reality. Nor does it explain why the vast majority of people apparently don't have the blockage the atheists have.

    Do you have any theory on what causes atheism, and what the cure might be (if there is one)?

    And do you think it is possible for a real theist to fall into the trap of atheism? Or is it a case of: once you're a real honest-to-goodness theist there's no changing that?

    You don't actually know what God claims. You just assume that your scriptures tell you something real about God. You assume your scriptures are not just human-constructed stories.

    But why?

    What's in it for the atheist? Why does the atheist not open himself to God's full magnificence, love and so on? Fear? Ego? What does the atheist gain by his denial of the Truth, exactly?

    And, while we're on that question, what does the theist gain over the atheist by acknowledging God? Is there some tangible benefit for the theist?

    That's stereotyping on your part, and you know it. It might make you feel better to believe that atheists can't think critically. No doubt it is even true for some atheists, but the same can be said for most theists, as I'm sure you'll agree. If you think it gives you an out to tar all atheists with the same brush, you're missing something important.

    Again, how do atheists come to the position where God doesn't exist for them? Or are they born that way?

    How does the theist come to the position where he knows what God is? How does he get over that hurdle that is insurmountable for the atheist?

    You seem to assume that atheists reject the scriptures out of hand (i.e. without having properly evaluated them so they understand them). But why would they do that, if it is so obviously to their own detriment?

    What of the atheist converts, then? Some claim to have spent years trying to comprehend God and scripture etc. - studying it even to the stage of expertise. And they also claim to have truly believed in all of it. Then what went wrong? Where did they get the atheist glasses, all of a sudden, and why? It seems to me that, at least in some cases, it is profoundly inconvenient for a person to "convert" to atheism; it can upturn a person's life. Why do they do it, then? Or are they all just liars who never really believed after all?
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Maybe they're both equally important.
    How is it possible to comprehend objective reality at all, without being subjective?

    I'm not the information.

    The thread is entitled ''In regard to atheism'' not ''In regard to Baldees atheism''.

    If God doesn't exist subjectively, then it follows that He cannot exist objectively. For most people, if not every person, they don't believe in furry teapot overlords, subjectively. It's hardly likely that their objective reality is given any thought. But we can discuss them, and even agree that because we cannot know whether there are any furry teapot overlords within this entire universe, or any other universe, the best position to be is agnostic on the matter. That is very similar to your position. Isn't it?

    This doesn't address the question.
    Atheist's like yourself claim there is no evidence for God, but claim also that God is unknowable.

    What is it about God, that you know, is unknowable?

    What do they know?

    What is the question(s) they seek an answer(s) to?

    Why is that question so important?
    Who would question the existence of ''Love'', in light of the subjective evidence that is abound? I would say, somebody who does not accept the claims of people who experience love.

    What if the very wise people, explained that their wisdom is a gift from God? Would they still be very wise people? Why would you not accept it? Don't you think that if you reject it, even on the grounds that there is currently no objective evidence (that you can see) to back their claim, you will never know if they are correct?

    We're talking about the information. This same information was passed down orally, previous to the written word. So it is the information that is paramount, and absolutely unique. It requires no special pleading, as it is in a category of it's own.

    I wasn't aware that the wheel was invented.

    Quite. Especially as he was supposed to be a pre-scientific, ignoramus (according to the theory of evolution). He wasn't meant to know that he lives on a planet, in a universe, decked out with stars and other planets

    I'm not trying to convince you.

    Why is this view biased?
    All atheists, when questioned, claim there is no evidence for God, but they don't know what the evidence should be, yet they maintain their assertion. This can only mean that the evidence they speak of, should it be produced, will be natural. But God isn't defined as a natural entity, so the atheist will never accept God as defined, because there will/can be no evidence.

    They do not accept scriptures as a source of information that leads one to comprehend God's existence, to the point where one cannot even discuss it unless it shows what can be perceived to be negative information.

    It seems as though a barrier has been created, and once barricaded in, one can never comprehend God.

    How can you say you have no knowledge of God, when there is a plethora of information of God?

    jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2015
  22. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I don't think there is a lot to ''know'' about atheists, plus I discuss, and listen to atheist's all the time. So I have a good knowledge base of atheism.

    It just seems that there are people who are attracted to God, and some people aren't. That much is apparent.
    I think it simply boils down to attraction.

    I do think it is very complex, and not as simple, or black and white, as we all tend to edit down to. I'm pertaining to vocal atheist, and how they present their position, as opposed to people for whom God is not a concern, type of atheist.

    When I hear an atheist say there is no evidence for God, that is one thing. But when they add ''I once believed in God and through critical thinking, I came to realise that there is no evidence for God's existence'', I become interested, because I want to know what they mean by evidence, plus, what was this ''God'' they believed in.

    It depends what we're attracted to.
    Anthony Flew was attracted to arguing against the existence of God, but later became attracted to the existence of God. I think he knew all along that God existed, but chose to fight against it.
    Is that what atheism is, simply a retraction of God?
    Is theism an attraction to God? I'm inclined to think that.

    It's not only atheists that close themselves off to this magnificent creator of the universe, theists also do. In this day and age it is very difficult to keep you mind on God at all times. This is why we are supposed to worship God, so that we can keep our mind on Him, if we sincerely want to elevate this material existence. But this material existence can be very enticing.

    Like Baldee implied, we all have the same information, and ability to comprehend that information.
    If I hang around waiting for ''love'' to be scientifically shown to exist, then the chances are I'll die a lonely man.

    That's something for you to consider. I have my own inconsistencies to deal with.

    I don't think atheism and theism are as black and white as we portray them to be. But I think attraction is at the heart of everything.

    Why would I assume that they are just human-constructed stories?
    Why do you assume that they are?

    You tell me, you're an atheist.

    What does a person wit loves, gain over a person without love?
    Is there some tangible benefit for the person who loves.

    I did say ''most atheists'', not just atheist's or all atheist's.
    But that is my experience.

    If as you say you believed in God, and then came to the conclusion, via critical thinking, that there is no evidence for God's existence, then what does that say about people who believe God exists, with regards to critical thinking?

    .

    I don't think they're attracted to God.

    It's not a hurdle. It is natural to enquire about the nature of the self, as your consciousness develops. It just follows on. We create our own hurdles, creating barriers, then barricading ourselves in them.
    Imagine trying to hit a target 100's of yards away, but ever so slightly aim away from it. You're never going to hit the target by your own efforts.

    So why do they dismiss the idea of God on account of no physical evidence, having studied the scriptures. That makes no sense.

    Like I said, it's a lot more complex than simply professing belief or lack of. Attraction is very powerful, I'm sure you'll agree. We can become caught up, and slightly move the the aim so we never hit the target.

    jan.
     
  23. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    One seeks to eliminate the subjectivity involved and then one gets to as close to the objective reality as is possible.
    But with regard some things the subjective is all there will ever be, and the comprehension of the objective is beyond us.
    So we conclude "I don't know".
    But if it is information upon which you base a considerable amount of your time, to ridicule the information is to ridicule the person, albeit indirectly.
    But I do not feel that the atheist, in general, does ridicule the information.
    Yet I am the one having a discussion with you, to whom you are responding.
    Please do not be so disingenuous as to argue against my points with reference to positions I do not hold.
    I am an atheist.
    If you intend to argue solely against the stereotype "Atheist" that you have created then please let me know and I can leave you to your strawman.
    Subjective existence is very different from an objective one.
    I agree that God does exist subjectively.
    The same way that love, beauty, thoughts etc all exist subjectively and not objectively.
    They are interpretations of the experience of the objective by the various filters of an individual's consciousness, and only have existence as part of that individual's consciousness.
    Remove that consciousness and you are left with just the objective.
    The creation or otherwise of the universe is an objective matter.
    Thus subjective existence is irrelevant in the search for the question of objective existence.
    Similar, yes.
    From what I understand of God... Everything.
    But I don't know that it is definitely unknowable.
    I am almost certainly agnostic on whether God is truly unknowable, as I simply do not know what could constitute evidence or proof or even knowledge of God's existence.
    I simply do not know what I do not know.
    If I knew what I do not know then I might be certain in my strong agnosticism, but, well, there you go.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That the universe is a closed system, as demonstrated by centuries of advances in the sciences.
    Does God exist (objectively)?
    It would likely provide people with closure, one way or another, on numerous issues.
    Agreed, otherwise there is no reason to question the existence of what they would know to be a subjective experience.
    But I am not aware of any such evidence of God that can not be explained in some other far more mundane manner.
    Yes, there are books of antiquity, the notion of God is embedded within most societies on earth, but that merely seems to be the spreading of a meme that has proved useful, much like capitalism, democracy etc.
    How is merely accepting their claim "knowing" that they are correct.
    I would never know they are correct even if I did accept it.
    I would merely believe it without ever knowing.
    Are they still wise?
    A wise man is still just a man, and subject to the same failings as the rest of us.
    And each man's wisdom will have its limit.
    Yet almost all the stories of ancient Greece were also told orally prior to being written down.
    Should we give credence to them, as evidence of a pantheon of deities?
    Your desire to put the information into a category of its own is simply special pleading, Jan.
    ??? Seriously?
    Care to indicate how else it came to be?
    Who says that he was not meant to know?
    There are undoubtedly many things that Man discovered or invented in the past that were simply forgotten, either through societal upheaval (war, devastation etc) or simply lack of use in those times.
    Knowledge, especially when not written down, is always at risk of being lost if the keepers of that knowledge are lost without the chance to pass it on.
    So I do not find it surprising that ancient texts talk about knowledge that were later lost.
    Even in the relatively recent history we had our Dark Ages in the West, where much of the ancient roman and Greek knowledge was lost to us, eventually rediscovered.
    Religions were often the cause of that, trying to wipe out what they saw as heretical knowledge in an effort to retain their standing as keepers of "knowledge" (or at least the so-called knowledge that helped further their aims).
    So no, I see nothing too surprising in that.
    As I keep saying, you seem to want to underestimate what ancient man was capable of.
    Then don't criticise when I'm not convinced of something you say.
    So explain to them what constitutes evidence for a theist, but one that does not involve circular reasoning.
    They do accept scriptures as a source of information.
    They just apply what they see as critical thought to that information, most notably what they see as circular reasoning.
    They are on the outside of that circle looking in, perhaps as equally obliviously trapped inside their own such circle, never the twain shall meet.
    If indeed there is a God to be comprehended.
    As such it seems as though a barrier has been created, and once barricaded in, one can never comprehend the non-existence of God.
    Works both ways, you see.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Information is not knowledge.
    Information is useful but it may or may not lead to the truth.
    Only when the truth is revealed can you say you have knowledge.
     

Share This Page