But you're not using it. This is false (as usual from you): Atheists do not believe in god(s) - that's the definition. In order for atheists to be - as you persist in claiming - without "god" then "god's" existence is necessarily the question. Unless you want to accept that theists are also "without "god"" but merely believe there is one. If your position is that "god" does exist then you'll have to show that this is the case. Further, if - as you also persist in claiming - "god" is everywhere (and is also responsible for the universe and everything in it) then atheists cannot be "without "god"".
Yes, it is in its broadest sense the absence of belief that god(s) exists. And you want to brush over the whole "does God exist" issue? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please help me understand your thinking here... how will not exploring that issue help with the exploration of atheism? If you are looking to understand why they don't have that belief then it is rather linked to the question you're looking to avoid. Similarly if I want to explore theism and why theists believe that God exists, then it does rather beg the question of God existing, and to understand why they think that, one must examine the arguments for and against the proposition. And so we're back to the whole God being a subjective matter. Does God have an objective existence or wholly a subjective one? Well, when you want to bring one up that does actually help us get "back to basics" (if that is indeed what is required, which I don't believe is) then please do so. This one, however, is just valueless. [qupte]There's no point, we may as well just deal with what is on the table.[/quote]That's the point, though, Jan. There is nothing on the table. There are just trite comments from you suggesting that there is something, and then inane repetitive and valueless nonsense from you when others push back. And I note that you have continued to evade the earlier question: Do you have anything else to offer that doesn't beg the question?
The implication doesn't natter for you, unless you are advocating atheism as true. If God does, as you put it, exist, it makes no difference to your position. Why would I want to accept that? I've already stated the overall position of both atheist and theist, and I don't need to show anything, anymore than you do. I've already covered this. Jan.
You're avoiding the point (which is no surprise). No, I'm going by the definition YOU gave and the arguments that YOU are making. A) I didn't say that "god" does exist, and B) It certainly does make a difference: you persist in claiming that "atheists are without "god"". You have also previously stated that one cannot be "without something" unless that "something" actually exists [1]. Ergo the question of "god's" existence is central to your argument. Quite. So we're back to "god's" existence actually being a factor - contrary too your earlier claim. No, you made claims about what constitutes "atheist/ atheism" - claims now shown shown to be false and/ or inconsistent with the rest of your claims. No, you haven't. If you truly had then you wouldn't be able to (honestly) argue that "atheists are without "god"". 1 Not a position I hold, but you're the one that made the claim. You could - even if you can't be honest - at least try to be consistent in your arguments.
That is for a discussion regarding God's existence, which this thread is not. God can not exist for an atheist, lest he wouldn't be an atheist. So the basic position of the atheist is that God does not exist. Even if you add... "unless God can be shown to exist"., still means that God does not exist (for the atheist). That is the position I am interested in. I believe the Bible, or any other scripture is correct. Subconsciously atheists affirm to themselves that there is no God. It is quite obvious, even though you will deny it, I'm sure. We've had years of this kind of communication. It is non productive because the atheist always wants to argue, exclusively from their own platform, which is God does not exist. It obviously seems that way to you, because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. But that is not the entire picture. Read my response. If you think I am begging the question, explain. Jan.
Yes, I've stated that God Is, and God does not exist as far as atheists, any place, any time, are aware. What of it? Atheists are without God, because God does not exist as far as they are aware (afataa). It doesn't matter whether God, as they say, exists or not. That is their position. What do you mean by "Not a position I hold"? Jan.
The question was: You not only didn't answer that question you (falsely) ascribed a position [1] to Sarkus. 1 Although - as usual - you also failed entirely to make a definitive statement as to what that position is: something you consistently do because the lack of definitive statements reduces your chance of being pinned down as to what, precisely, you're saying. Your ENTIRE modus operandi is to be as vague as possible in order to maintain your unsupported claims.
I'll assume that, as usual, you're being deliberately obtuse. 1) You have claimed that one cannot be without something unless that something exists. 2) You have also claimed that "atheists are without "god"". (This is an implicit statement that "god" exists. Not "exists for some" and " doesn't exist for others"). Thus, contrary to your comment I don't believe that the question of God's existence is even present. At least not in this thread anyways that question is, in fact, central to this thread AND your position. Entirely wrong. By your own argument ("atheists are without "god"") "god" does exist for atheists (because he/ she/ it has to exist for them to be "without him/ her/ it). They simply don't believe it. I wonder who explains really complicated concepts to you, things like how to open a cereal packet. 1) I listed YOUR claim. 2) I stated that it's not a position I hold. The obvious (unless you're seriously rationality-deficient) implication is that I disagree with that claim. I note that you have - typically - not addressed the point about consistency in your arguments. Ho hum...
Like I said to you. I accept that God Is. The obsession with whether or not God exists, is characterised purely by atheists. No it's not, and it has never been. Atheist defend their position. That is all. My position is theist, and that is all. We don't need to go back through this existence thing. It has been done to death, and to no avail. So if you want to discuss God's "existence", be my guest. But it is one roller-coaster ride I will not be attending. Now you're beginning to comprehend what is meant by God Is. See ya! Jan.
Nope. You believe that ""god" is". False again. And you've also avoided the point of what was written. Wrong. Again. You have claimed that atheists are without "god". Since you have also stated that you can't be without something unless that thing exists then the existence of that thing is central to the question. If it doesn't exist then everyone is without it. If it does, hen, as previously noted, atheists cannot be "without it" given the characteristics ascribed to it BY YOU. Nope. Your position is that you falsely ascribe things to atheists and atheism and assume that you're correct. BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT we do need to "go back through it". No. But I am beginning to see that you don't recognise logic. And that you're incapable of, or unwilling to, address the actual points made. Yeah... you're leaving in embarrassment I take it. (That's sarcasm by the way. You appear to be as immune to embarrassment as you are to logic, honesty and consistency).
It is inextricorably linked. Discussion of atheism entails discussing why they think the way the do, which entails the very question of the existence of God. You don't seem to be interested in it at all, as all you do is assert it over and over again, refusing to actually discuss what the atheist says. All you come back with is "because you are without God". And you're again back to the whether God exists objectively or wholly subjectively. On what basis do you believe it correct? What experiences have you had that have led you to conclude that? It only seems obvious to you, Jan. To many of those that are actually atheist it is certainly not clear, precisely because it is not true about them. But you fail to listen to them and ride roughshod over what they say with your "that's because God does not exist for you". We have rarely had that kind of communication on this website. And both sides are as guilty of derailing threads, so please don't try and put theists on any pedestal from where they can cry victim! If you want to see why threads derail and are unproductive then you need look no further than your own responses, in this thread as well as any other you're involved in. And back you resort to your seemingly default response. No effort to try and discuss, just what you think is a rebuttal to close it off. Discussion, my arse! See post #1658 where it was fully explained to you. But to reiterate: God is defined as that which gives rise to our ability to understand. We understand. This is therefore evidence of God. This is begging the question. Do you have any examples that do not beg the question.
You want to criticize my technique? I think you want to nitpick because you are unable to give up your faulty assumptions. Atheists are often just seekers who realized theistic religions are lies and there was nothing to seek.
You say there is a lack of evidence. I say you have subconsciously affirmed "there is no God". I've been discussing it for years, from every conceivable angle. This is my conclusion. You're back to that. I've moved on from that. Regarding reasons why you're atheist? Years of debates, discussion, listening, watching, and reading up on, atheists. It is almost painfully obvious. You don't even check you're own rulings. On one hand atheists claim they are not a collective, or a belief system. That the only thing they have in common are lacking belief in God. Now you seem to be implying that no actual atheist affirms to themselves, God does not exist. Are you a collective or not? I've listened to them for years. In another thread, I've commended you on your agnosticism. Why? Because I accept your position. How could I accept it if Rode rough shod over your claims? I believe there is evidence that God Is. Most of it I find on the Internet. But how you have defined it, is not what I said or meant. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Jan.
I asked you some pretty straightforward questions. But if you don't want to answer them, it is your prerogative. Jan.
Perhaps (IMO) . . . . God interacts with the physical (and mental?) universe at subquantum levels/scales via forms of entanglement . . . . or something akin to the Casimir Effect. Since human observers don't seem to yet be able to directly observe/record such (subplanckian?) interactions, it is difficult to promulgate sufficient physical "evidence" to convince atheists. An interesting link re: biological quantum entanglement processes - in DNA: http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0125v1.pdf
Neither helpful nor contributory. And - like most of what you post - probably boll*cks. The only "interesting" part is that someone would take this seriously: it's inane and incorrect drivel.
