My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

I don't label myself as an atheist. I don't label myself as a pessimist. I don't label myself as tall.

All of those attributes are relative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks, but it isn't necessary.

I don't think about God, the way you think about God James. So it's pointless going down that road.
I see theism, and atheism, as natural. They are fundamental. I am theist, and you are atheist.
To me God just IS.
You are without God.

In what way were you like me?
You clearly didn't give it any real thought. You most probably wanted something, or things. They didn't materialize, so you said sod this. I'm nothing like you were, or are. You are an atheist, I am a theist. These are fundamentals.

You don't want to believe in God. Why pretend otherwise?
We all know that a convincing argument is not going to arrive, because you'll reject everything (just like it says on the label).

So the fact that God doesn't actually exist, for you, is not really a consideration?
It's the only truth you can offer. Everything else is a defence for your ever so weak position.

You have no idea how I live my life, or how I relate to God, because you're an atheist. The best you can do is guess, or try to imagine (not sure why you'd do that). But be prepared to be told that you're mistaken, because you most certainly will be.

I've explained to you how and why I believe in God, many times. But you don't get it. You require me to put it in terms that suit your particular argument. Last time; Belief in God is natural, as is non belief in God.

It fits. What more do you want?

I don't need to imply it. The implication is already there. I merely bring it out of obscurity, or hiding.
If you lack belief in God, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means you actually lack belief in God. The implication is already there. You may want to bring it down to ''where's the evidence of God''. But it does not change the fact that you lack belief in God.

Also, when you ask for evidence of God, you imply that the evidence should be clear for atheists.
So for you, either God is what you think God should be, or God does not exist as far as you're aware, and you ask for suitable evidence, knowing that such evidence will never be forthcoming. Because you don't know what God is. Either way, you're definitely atheist as per description.

But does it currently exist, as far as you are currently aware?
Simple question JamesR, and you need a straightforward answer, if we are to move on.

Obviously, because God doesn't currently exist as far as you're aware.

There's nothing like stating the obvious James.
You are atheist, and I am theist. Two fundamentally different positions. They are why we see the world, the way we see it.

You see it like that because you are an atheist.
Don't you get it?

I've already explained this to you. So see it how you will.

You're the one who thinks evidence is required to believe in God.
I accept God, and understand that evidence (however that pertains to actually accepting God), can at best strengthen ones belief, or disbelief (if you're an atheist). I think it is very silly to sit around waiting for ''evidence'' or ''good explanations'', to access God. Life is short, there's no point in kidding yourself.

If that was the case, you'd accept that the evidence that is put forward for God, is evidence. But you reject, and deny it. You look for any little, snippet of something that could contradict it. Atheist are really obvious. Yet somehow they get away with it. I think theists give too much respect to atheists excuses, and goalpost shifting explanations.

Don't need to cherry-pick. Even the quote from an atheist site implies God exists, but they choose not to accept it.
You can't get away from it.

You cannot show where I am implying God exists, because it is embedded in every definition I've posted.
I think that you know I'm right James, which is why you keep trying to convince yourself of this.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is what is important to you. If all the atheists keep repeating 'you've been told', 'you're being dishonest, 'thousands of times', etc..., then at some point I'll get banned, or be told to stop doing whatever you keep repeating, and you don't have to face up to the reality of your position.

Again, very obvious.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you believe in God"

jan.

 

I just feel the need to point out that our perspectives are fundamentally different (opposing).

I have done, but you reject it.
Rejection is your thing.

I'm arrogant because I believe you haven't thought your position through?
I thought you agreed with the definition.

You points are atheist perspectives, which only avoids answering the questions I put to you.
It is a fact that God does not currently exist, as far as you are aware. Is it not?

And there you go again, with the pointless, and ineffective insults.

Theism is the belief in God. Why the need to personalise it? My belief, his belief, her belief...
Can you explain to me what it is to believe in God?
Or do you draw upon a time when you thought you believed in God, only to realise that you don't (because you're atheist).
You can't even talk about God, or Jesus, let alone believed in them. You're not kidding me James.

That's because you start from being an atheist. That is what you are, and it shapes your view of the world. You probably think you're being objective, that you have enough information, and ability, to view it from the opposite perspective. But you don't. It's like being blind. No matter how much information you amass, your perception will never be the same as a sighted person. That's not necessarily better or worse. It would depend on the individual. But it is a common-sense fact, which is why most people don't like the idea of losing their sight, as they feel they would be without something that they is essential.

The 'predisposition' to believe in God is something an atheist would insert, for there own credibility. The fact is people believe in God, and have always believed in God. It is natural to human beings, not a predisposition.
Like I said there are two perspectives, and both are correct from their own.

It doesn't matter how I explain my belief, it will never make sense to you, unless you give up you preconceptions. Which I doubt will happen any time soon.

Objective evidence is not the thing that makes you a theist. Sure theists will try and argue for God, using objective evidence, but that's not what is needed to be theist. Objective evidence gives insight into the awesomeness of God. Or if you're an atheist, the awesomeness of nature (as there is nothing else as far as they are aware).

You're the one who thinks there needs to be suitable evidence for God to be. Where did you get that idea from?
Could it be that you reject God, but don't know how or when it became real, that if God IS, then there should be suitable evidence (by suitable, evidence that conforms to whatever standard I deem fit)?

I believe in God, and I know that you don't.
I know that this is fundamental to us.
I accept that your world view is that of an atheist, and as such you don't believe in God, because God does not exist, to you.

Yet it is implicit within any definition of atheism you care to bring forth. Why?
Because atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Why is there a lack of belief in God?
Because the atheist cannot access God, because God does not exist to them. There, now you're not lying.

jan.

 

And how is "lack belief in God" any implication that God actually exists?
"Belief in God" exists - after all you have it.
Thus one can lack "belief in God".
I don't have "belief in God".
I therefore lack "belief in God".

Where in any of this, therefore, is there the implication that God actually exists?

No it doesn't imply that, for the reason above.

There's nothing but your continued misunderstanding of the logic of the definition in question.
And we honestly wish we could get away from it, but here you are, persisting with it.

No, it is simply your misinterpretation of the definitions that brings in the assumption of God's existence.
As explained above, the definition logically does not make the assumption that God exists.
It makes the assumption that "belief in God" exists - and that atheists lack this.

 

It doesn't even matter if you accept or reject any of your opponents' have a refutations of your assertions; you have contradicted your own assertions.

You were given plenty of rope, and you have hung yourself, with no help from any "atheists' perspective". Well done.

 

Nope.

Read the wise words of Jan Ardena:

 

How is this me saying God actually exists?
That is the reality regarding theism and atheism.
I would be surprised if an honest atheist didn't acknowledge that obvious fact.

You misunderstood it James. You thought I was talking about God, not the situation between theist and atheist.

I'm a theist James. What do you think?
But as usual, you misunderstood my point.
I don't need to imply God exists, or God is real, or from my perspective, God just IS, to explain that God does not exist for any atheist (lest they would not be atheist). All these other designations, fit right into that.

Yes. As a theist, my position is that I believe in God. I don't need to shift goalposts, or distort the opposing view to make myself more credible. It is what it is.

But the truth is God does not exist as far as you're aware. Let's deal with the truth James.

I think experts are over-rated in a lot of ways. In this case of course, an atheist is not more of an expert on the definition of atheism, than a theist, unless of course the theist complies with the atheist, which in a sense sums up the thinking of some atheists who are active and vocal.

It depends if it is relevant. This isn't, and I've explained why repeatedly.

Which is why I stick to essentials. The consistent fact is, God does not currently exist for atheists. Regardless of what they think.

I've always maintained that it is natural. Because it is.
If you can't accept that, that is you business.

*sigh*

No I'm not James.

Who says there is no external source? I thought you knew what theism means?

Just like one can comprehend God. You don't remember how, but take it from me theists do.
Atheists also, obviously in the opposite.

That's how you see it James.

Or if it's name is Humpty Dumpty?
Why should it?

People can act James. Psychopaths are supposed to be very good at pretending to be loving and caring.
Signs don't always follow James.

Why didn't you just answer the question? I'm sure it wouldn't have taken any longer than it did to write this non answer response.

jan.

 

Oh my gosh!
Dave, that was part of a link from the American Atheist site.

jan.

 

They can often assert that particular gods - or even entire categories of gods - do not exist as their believers claim they do, that specific assertions of the existence of particular kinds of gods are false claims.

That such gods exist (in the manner claimed) for nobody.

They can also remark that some claims and assertions regarding atheists in general or atheism in general are false - often via the easy way of presenting an immediate counterexample.

You were presuming God as an imposed frame for assertion, a rhetorical framing technique common in hypnosis and storytelling as well as dishonest argumentation.

The question here is one of honesty, not expertise.
But if we pretend that expertise is involved, it's clear you are less of an expert in some people's beliefs than they are.

 

The fact that you lack belief in God.
If you lacked belief in the notion of God, that wouldn't make you atheist.

Does God exist as you read this for the first time?
Of course you're going to say ''I don't know'', which is fine, because it could mean that God may well exist and you will at some point believe.

But it could also, and does mean, that at present there is nothing that you can call God.
There is no God, or existence of God, that you can decide.
There is, as you say, no evidence of anything that could be called God.
So to summarize, there is no God to know, and there is nothing in the form of evidence that even leads you in that direction.
So your not knowing, is obviously affiliated with non existence, simply because God doesn't exist. Either that or God does exist.

So Does God exist as you read this for the first time?

Belief or lack of belief in God, isn't the subject matter. God is the subject, we either accept or we don't.
If you don't believe what I say about God, it doesn't mean you don't believe or believe in God.
You're not an atheist because you reject others claim about God. You're an atheist because you don't believe in God.

jan.

 

That depends on the nature of the claims rejected, and the extent of the population of "others" making them.

Strayed. There are various postulated existences of various gods and entire categories of gods that can be decided, and are: by some atheists, in the negative.
Other atheists never got around to it.

You continue to attempt to frame your claims as about, independent from, an existing god. That begs the question. The claims and the gods are identical, unless the gods exist. You deny claiming your god exists - that leaves the claims. The atheist who rejects the claims is rejecting the god.

 

Indeed. Great that you found an authoritative source.
Now there won't be any more nonsense from you about definitions.

Hey Mods, can we strike about a thousand posts?

 

Eh?
I also lack belief in Zargex the Almighty.
Hence by your argument Zargex the Almighty exists?

You funny guy, Jan.

Why do you assume it is affiliated with non existence?
Where have I said or implied that?
If you don't understand the position, as you clearly do not, it is better that you ask rather than just make up your own assumptions to argue against.

I don't know.

 

It's worse than that. Jan thinks that sticking his own label on something forces that thing to conform to his choice of label.

It would be tantamount to declaring that, since Jan believes in the God of the Bible, therefore Jan thinks the world is only 6000 years old (because we get to pick the definition of the label). And then we can just repeat that over and over and over, no matter how he refutes it.

Fortunately, we recognize that would not be arguing in good faith.

 

You can all relax. Problem has been solved by a petty criminal here in Australia Northern Territory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Darwin NT News today 26/10/17

I don't know if Mr O'Neil intends to introduce his new friend to the Vatican or other religious leaders
Maybe a book tour. Might be a smart move to update Version 1 first

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!