To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Pachomius, Nov 8, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Pachomius...
    You really are wasting your time if you're waiting for atheists to put forth their concept of God... They generally don't have any specific concept but simply have yet to hear of one that they believe in (the existence of).
    As Yazata says, most will be happy to work with whatever you propose as your concept.

    Furthermore you have singularly failed to address a key issue with your preferred line of reasoning, in that in arriving at the conclusion (if that is what happens) that all things have a beginning, you are simply labelling this "God" but are unable to distinguish this God from a purely mechanistic, natural, unguided process.
    I.e. While you may have suggested certain properties that God must fulfil (I.e. Be the creator and operator etc) your line of reasoning presumes that only God is capable of that, or that whatever is capable of it must be God. This is an a priori assumption that you would need to justify.

    You also fail to address the issue of all the other properties that God may (or may not) be required to fulfil in order to be considered God, according to whatever concepts theists come up with.
    If your contention is that God is only the "initial cause / operator" then you have to justify giving it the label of "God" given the baggage that comes with it.

    You are ultimately arguing the Cosmological Argument yet stalling at every opportunity from actually discussing it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    God is, was, and always will be (until it isn’t) fundamental to human society, so for so called intelligent people to stubbornly continue to equate God with silly monsters and heavenly teapots, psychologically reveals a lot. The least of which is a wilful ignorance to comprehend, and/or understand what and who God is before blatantly throwing it out.

    This reveals the thinking behind those kiddie comparisons. I don’t want to go to another path. You haven’t comprehended the first path. Deal with the first path instead of sticking your finger in your ear crying out FSM.

    [/quote]And so you keep saying, yet you seem to have no counter for it, no way to pass it, no willingness to move around it. Instead you keep harping on about it as if it is some illegal manoeuvre, when rather it is utterly relevant but merely something that the other can not get past.[/quote]

    If I keep calling you a stupid little girl, what counter would you have?

    The word merely describes the being, it is not the being.

    Theist is a description, period. Unless you believe in God, you have no experience of what belief in God is. Without experience, your knowledge is incomplete. Yet you think you know what belief in God IS, over and above people who believe in God. Another case of wilful ignorance.


    Wilful ignorance and condescension again. What do you mean ‘’they believe in at least one god’’? Theos is the greek word primarily meaning God. Generally, when people talk of being theist, they mean they believe in God, The Supreme Being. Furthermore, you know that.
    So why keep bringing this ‘’gods’’ thing into it it?


    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    The concept of God is undoubtedly important, as are the concepts of Capitalism, Democracy, Monarchy etc.
    And there is no stubbornness in equating the aspect of the concept of God that is analogous to the teapot, pink unicorns... it is what it is. Your criticism seems to stem from simply not grasping what the analogy is, and thinking that the analogy is used more widely than is actually applied by those using it.
    Hey ho.
    We also do not blatantly throw out the idea of God. We simply do not believe in the existence of God, a significant reason being the same reason we don't believe in the existence of anything else for which we have no evidence that we can rationally attribute to said existence.
    You hare simply having a hissy fit with your belligerent language, Jan.
    The path is simple: what evidence is there for the existence of God? Travel down it by all means. But at the top is this "block" that states - through an absurd analogy aimed at highlighting the point - that we (agnostic atheists such as myself) do not believe in the existence something unless there is evidence that rationally supports said existence.
    So no more excuses, no more complaining that the "block" is in your way. You've admired it long enough, you've criticised that it is there at all... Now move on.
    That would depend on how concerned I am about it. I could provide you with evidence to counter it: photos, a live video call if that is necessary, and proof of what education I have that would speak against the claim of stupidity. But there would be evidence.
    Alternatively, if I felt it more pragmatic and expedient, I would merely ignore you and/or raise the case with the the moderators and let them deal with it.
    So stop complaining about the "block" and address it. If you find you can't address the issue it is raising then stop complaining when it is raised, as all that is is you whingeing.
    I'm glad we agree on something.
    Indeed - of people who believe in the existence of God. Using the term is a description of the person, not the person itself. But I'm glad we seem to be getting somewhere.
    Strawman: theists believe in the existence of God, that is what the description means. One doesn't need to have experience of belief in God to be able to call someone a theist or not. As you yourself said: "the word merely describes the being".
    Yet you have audacity to call a dog a dog! Shame on you!
    Strawman: where have I said I know, or given cause to think that I know, what belief in God is? We're talking about the existence of God. Note the thread title. And despite your disagreement, theism is belief in the existence of one or more gods (and yes, that includes God).
    There is no condescension, and the only ignorance is on your part, Jan:
    Theos is the Greek word for god (little g) and was used long before the notion of a single God was around. I'm sure you've heard of Zeus, Poseidon, Athena et al? As such, yes, the ancient Greeks were theists if they believed in the existence of their gods.
    Similarly "deus" is the Latin for god (little g) from which we get the words deity, deism etc.
    Any attempt to hijack theism to refer solely to God will fall on deaf ears to anyone who understands the etymology of the word.
    Maybe "generally" when people refer to it they refer to God, especially if the culture is rooted in the Abrahamic religions, but one can not nor should not ignore the wider/fuller meaning of the term when it is being used.
    Thus we have terms such as monotheism, polytheism etc.: the term theism (belief in the existence of god) is prefixed by a descriptor of the number of gods (one, multiple etc). If theism simply meant belief in the existence of God then polytheism would mean... what... "belief in the existence of multiple Gods even though there is just one God"?

    (And you'll excuse me if I sometimes write "belief in God/gods" when I actually mean "belief in the existence of God/gods". I am typing on an iPad and find it frustrating such that I may not be as consistent as I might otherwise like.)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jan Ardena:

    It's worth pointing out that there is some question as to the degree to which Flew was influenced at a time in his life when his mental faculties were in decline. In other words, it might be less a case of him coming to see the light and stopping childish games yadda yadda yadda than of a man in the throes of Alzheimer's being taken advantage of by some religious types who were very well aware of what a coup it would be to get a famous atheist apparently to recant on his deathbed.

    In summary, I don't think I'd hold up Flew as the best example of an atheist coming to see the light.

    In other words, one has to have faith, in the sense of believing in stuff in the absence of evidence. That goes against the basics of the scientific method, which I guess is why so many scientists don't believe in God.

    Ah, I get it. Atheists are stupid! That explains why they don't believe in stuff that has no evidence like they should. Thanks, Jan.

    Wait a minute! You can't have it both ways. One minute you're saying people just have to accept that God exists regardless of evidence, and the next you're saying that no, there really is some evidence that we can use to make a rational decision after all. So which is it?

    Lots of people believe in God for fairly insubstantial reasons. I'd even wager that quite a few do believe just because of one thing - one thing that happened to them, one thing they were told by their parents or teachers, one thing they felt in a quiet moment, or just one wish they have. And they're theists as much as you are, no matter how you try to redefine the term.

    Again, it seems to me that you already stated that no evidence can lead you to the unavoidable conclusion that God exists. To get there, you need a leap of faith, which means you make a choice to believe in something for which you have insufficient evidence.

    That's assuming you're making a conscious choice, of course. But most believers don't go through a process of logical reasoning and examination of evidence to get to their belief in God, anyway. They are indoctrinated into their religion by their parents, their relatives, their friends, their society, and so on. That is, they effectively inherit belief in God by default.

    That math doesn't add up for me. Are you playing word games again, Jan?

    So let's see how that reads from the other side:

    Everything we genuinely believe in, has its basis in some form of experience, so what’s at question here is the experience, not the belief. Theists believe God does exist, and the reason they believe this is personal to each and every one of them. Of course most of them have been conditioned to cry ''Look at all the evidence'', but evidence does not yield any experience to back up their claims. They simply have no choice but to stick to ''I feel that God exists, therefore God exists''. That is ALL they have to bring to the table.​

    Scripture is just words written by people. It's obviously important to you and your belief, Jan, so I can understand how it rankles when people point out that it's just words written by people. Your belief that scripture is God's word is just faith - belief in the absence of evidence.
     
  8. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Sarkus,

    *facepalm*

    I said ‘’There is no evidence that can make a person believe in God’’. Please try and keep up.

    *facepalm*

    Notice I said ‘’…if God exists’’? No... I don’t suppose you did. Nevertheless, that’s what I said.

    If God does exist, then yes, everything is evidence. There is nothing circular about that.

    I'm not sure we simply just ''start believing'' in things, and I don't think that we need reasons to believe, or love. I think we are attracted to things whether we like it or not, but we have the capacity to control our relationship to things we find ourselves attracted or drawn to.

    Theists don't need a reason to believe in God, the attraction is already there. It is up to us in what we decide. We already have a capacity be self-destructive while in full knowledge of our demise, showing that reasons come well after. In the same way we can put refrain from self-destruction and embrace self-realization.

    From your perspective, I agree.

    I’m not patronising you, I’m simply telling you how it is. Atheists (especially militants) are the elitist and patronising ones. The subject matter of this thread bears testimony to that.

    So why do atheists, yourself included, ask for evidence? Or why is ‘’no evidence’’ the most common reason for atheists not believing in God?

    Like ‘’believing in a murdering psychopath’’ is a subset of ‘’belief in the existence of said murdering psychopath’’?

    I don’t think so mate.


    Maybe, but without ‘’God’’, the Supreme, there is no need of the term theist or theism. Polytheistic cultures (perhaps with the exception of ancient Greece) still accepted, believed in, feared, worshiped a Supreme Being, from whom everything (including gods) originated. So we may as well deal with the source.


    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It really is a question of what one values. For some, it can seem like a choice between Truth and Happiness. What does it matter if there isn't any evidence for God, if believing in God makes you feel nice? On the other hand, if you're another type of person you might prefer to know the truth, even if it makes you uncomfortable or it is one you'd rather not hear.

    I think that if you really appreciate the scientific method, then you must value evidence highly. It also seems to me that it makes sense to value the scientific method, because its tangible benefits to humanity are obvious. It appears to be the best method we have come up with for generating reliable knowledge about our world. Religion, on the other hand, doesn't have a very good track record for producing reliable knowledge. For one thing, it doesn't have an error-correcting mechanism built in like science does. For another, it tends to be authority-based rather than evidence-based, and authorities have an unfortunate tendency to be all too human.

    If one values science and evidence, then one becomes less likely to accept without question superstitions, folk tales and dubious anecdotes from self-appointed authorities.
     
  10. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Sarkus,


    Diversion tactic again. I used ‘’faith’’ to demonstrate how the atheist generally have one meaning that applies to them, and another meaning that applies to theists. I used it because it is more common in these types of discussions.



    The experience covers the need for interpretation. It is exactly what it is. If I feel cold, I’m hardly likely to interpret that as being warm.

    So for them God does not exist.

    I don’t know if I’m going to be a billionaire anytime soon, but until that time comes, one thing is for sure. I’m not a billionaire.



    Yeah – they say ‘’show me something that can not be explained by natural means. But everything can be explained away as some kind of natural phenomenon, and what can’t is to be put in the ‘’I don’t know pile’?. So what has to occur for the atheist to say ‘’yes, I believe God exists’’? A serious question.



    And I’ve explained to you a number of times that titles do not, the person make. You hide behind your title expecting me to stay within there comfy, designed little habitat, while you can say what you like. No. I’m taking you at your written word, and so far you come across as a person for whom God does not exist. If you want to don atheist/agnostic title, then you have sound as if, you believe outright that you don't know God exists or not. Not standing by the mocking, of the object of peoples belief, then go all out to justify the unjustifiable.

    And you are on a cycle of not fully comprehending what I mean. The beginning of my last post to you are good examples of me having to deal with this.

    That is a pathetic analogy.

    Silly monsters like the FSM, and heavenly teapots are completely childish. Equating them with God is one or a combination of, gross ignorance, ignorance, ignorance and mockery, and mockery. There is no other intention for it. And if you stick by it, then you are one of the above.

    It could be said that ‘’I don’t believe in God because I can’t Him/Her/ It’’. Or ‘’I don’t believe in God because the evidence does not suggest God. Or ‘’I don’t believe in God because I don’t want to’’. Why the need to invoke silly, childish imagery, to equate with God? Because it belittles the whole notion of God. That’s why.

    Why don’t you read what I write? I spend half the time going back over what was said. It’s very tedious.

    I said it was his intention to ridicule. That is obvious despite your unwillingness to admit it.

    *facepalm*

    I’ve explained this to you already. He is incapable of ridiculing, despite his intention, the same way I am incapable of ridiculing you by calling you a stupid little girl, despite my intention. But, if I am influential enough, I can affect how you are being perceived by the public at large. That is the problem.

    Dude! I’ve already explained it. There is no argument other than. I can’t see God therefore, God doesn’t exist. The mockery merely posits I can’t see silly monsters made out of spaghetti, or heavenly teapots orbiting Jupiter, therefore they don’t exist. Wait a minute! God, the silly monster, and the heavenly teapot amount to the same nothingness. Why?...

    ...BECAUSE WE CAN’T SEE THEM. With that, you cannot venture any further because the question now becomes, prove God exists, which has nothing to do with theism, or theistic religion.



    Because one still has to perform work. If one believes that they can better themselves in some way, then they are basing that belief on something they currently know (experience) that can achieve this goal. They then have to set about making that happen.

    The pink unicorn is a diversion as you already know. It is used for the sole intention of ridiculing and mocking God, and people who believe in God. It has zero merit as I demonstrated to you earlier.


    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Your exact words:
    There is no evidence that can make a person believe in God. The person has to accept God regardless of physical appearances. Flew looked for evidence the whole of his life, but realised that the evidence was, and is, right under his nose,...
    Note how in this same paragraph you say that there is no evidence, and then without alteration of what the evidence would be for, you say that Flew realised the evidence was right under his nose. This is a blatant contradiction, and rather than seek to address your error and provide clarification you merely try to arm-wave it away.
    If you can't keep up with what you yourself write, what hope do the rest of us have in trying to discuss with you.
    I saw it. It makes no difference as your argument remains circular. Whether you phrase the premise as a conditional or not is actually irrelevant.
    "If God exists, everything is evidence of God, since God created everything. Thus everything would be evidence of God, and thus God would be proven to exist... if God exists."
    Or, to put it in its simplest terms: "If X then X"
    You can't really get more circular.
    Such is the way of irrationality, at least.
    I don't disagree that there are some things we are naturally attracted to - through our genetics and upbringing. Bent it doesn't make the subject of that attraction right, and if it is a concept we are attracted to it doesn't make the concept real, or existent (as anything other than a self-made concept).
    [qupte]Theists don't need a reason to believe in God, the attraction is already there. It is up to us in what we decide. We already have a capacity be self-destructive while in full knowledge of our demise, showing that reasons come well after. In the same way we can put refrain from self-destruction and embrace self-realization.[/quote]Showing that reasons can come well after. It doesn't make it necessarily so in all cases, as you imply.
    And from his, or do you doubt his own words on the matter?
    www.strangenotions.com/flew
    And I presume you still miss the irony in this statement of yours?
    And where are they to be found on this thread?
    Because we find we can not believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence. I have tried. I would really like to believe in an afterlife, in a heaven, etc. but I can't. For the same reason that I don't believe in huge existence of everything else for which I have no evidence that can rationally support it's existence. There is simply nothing in this universe that requires me to conclude in the reality of "God exists". At best I can conclude "I don't know" to certain questions.
    Indeed - one can not have belief in X without believing in the existence of X. Simple deductive logic. Belief in X necessitates belief in the existence of X. Hence I referred to as a subset of.
    It may not be the most elegant or precise term to use, but it hopefully gets the point across... one of necessary prerequisite belief.
    Yes there is: pantheism, polytheism, atheism, the need to distinguish between theistic and non-theistic religions etc.
    Presumably along with the Greeks you would include the Romans? What about the Egyptians, who also did not believe in a sole creator God?
    But heck, why not just remove all examples that work against you and concentrate only on the ones that fit your bill...
    You are simply wrong here, Jan. Theism relates to gods, although of course since God is considered by some to be the source of all, God would qualify under the banner of theism. But you don't need to believe in the existence of an ultimate Supreme Being to be considered a theist.
     
  12. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Why do I ask for evidence, or perhaps more broadly for any kind of plausible and convincing justification that might be forthcoming for believing in God's objective existence? To help me form a conclusion as to whether it's reasonable to believe in the existence of God. Certainly, if anyone expects me to join them in believing, then they need to give me some convincing reason why I should.

    Seeing as how invisible unicorns and celestial teapots have already pushed our theists over the edge, here's an analogy that is going to drive them into an absolute frenzy.

    Schizophrenics sometimes report 'hearing' voices in their walls, speaking to them. The question arises, are there real objective (albeit crazy) voices inside the walls?

    Nobody else hears them. Recording instruments catch no trace of them.

    Obviously it might be possible to provide some other account of why an individual comes to believe that he/she is 'hearing' voices that don't seem to objectively be there. Psychiatric illness is the preferred one these days. But that kind of account doesn't justify the belief that the voices have anything but subjective 'existence', inside the hearer's head so to speak.

    Returning to the theism argument, sure, there might be all kinds of reasons (psychological or whatnot) why theists believe in the existence of God that have nothing to do with evidence or with plausible justification. Those reasons might explain very precisely why a particular theist has a particular belief. But what they don't provide us with is any convincing reason to conclude that the belief is true and that the object of the individual's belief really exists.

    Before people start screaming, I'm most emphatically NOT conflating belief in God with psychiatric illness. I think that they are two very different things. The problem is providing some account of how they are different.

    That returns us to the kind of philosophical problem that motivated the invisible unicorn and celestial teapot analogies. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that belief in God has nothing to do with objective evidence or with epistemic justification, accepting instead that belief in God exists for entirely different kinds of reasons, something more still seems to be necessary than merely insisting that belief and disbelief stand on an equal footing with regards to anything that can't be absolutely disproven. Even if we set aside the question of truth, we still need some reason to think that belief in God is less 'silly' and 'childish' than invisible unicorns, and healthier than psychotic delusions. So we find that the belief justification problem is a stubborn one that won't go away all that easily, even when we try to psychologize it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
    Motor Daddy likes this.
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    And as I said, it is a strawman. And you are correct, I do tend to divert away from strawmen.
    Feeling cold IS the interpretation. The experience is the temperature, wind-chill etc. And yes, one person can feel cold while another experiences it as hot.
    But so much for your selective bias with your example: the reason we have people believing in ghosts when all they may have seen are flickering lights, or patterns in the sky etc. is because of differing interpretations of the same evidence and experience.
    Yet that has no bearing on whether God exists in actuality.
    Great. Now explain the relevance of this, please. :shrug:
    I don't know. It is not something I can answer, seriously, but I will know if and when it happens.
    And I'm sure I've now explained a number of times to you that this is a strawman: no one has said it makes the person.
    That would be because for me God does not exist. You see this as a revelation of some sort? But I do not know whether god exists or not, but until I know my position with regard God is the same as my position toward any other thing for which I don't know whether it exists or not (e.g. Pink unicorns, the celestial teapot et al).
    There is no mocking... There is is an explanation, through absurdity, of why I don't believe in the existence of God. You take umbrage with the analogy but I have yet to hear from you a valid reason for that. The justification for the analogy is simple: it explains concisely, and in a way that highlights through absurdity, the reason for many people's non-belief in the existence of God.
    So now I'm at fault for not understanding your contradictions? Nice.
    Yet counters like with like.
    So your argument is to call them silly because you think them silly, rather than the notion of what they are designed to highlight.
    But you are right, one could say any of those things you suggest, but none have the ability to highlight through absurdity, the point at hand. To arrive at an analogy that would be understood one has to use something that the other person would not believe in the existence of for the same reasons - I.e. Lack of evidence.
    You give me another example of something you obviously wouldn't believe in due to lack of evidence, and let's see if you can come up with something as obvious as the celestial teapot.
    Because I was giving you more credit than you seem to deserve: if you say it doesn't ridicule, then why have you spent the last few pages trying to argue that it ridicules, or as you said just now "belittles the whole notion of God" with "silly, childish imagery"?
    Your contradictory posts are confusing, Jan, so it would be better to correct those than have a go at those trying to fathom what you mean.
    So you're back to saying he doesn't ridicule, and in fact is incapable of ridiculing, yet that is contradictory to your "belittles the whole notion of God!"
    Or do you expect me to think of belittling with silly and childish imagery as not being ridicule?
    FYI: Ridicule is not from the point of the subject of ridicule but from the person committing it. So whether or not you feel ridiculed is irrelevant to whether or not you are the subject of it.
    Yet that isn't the argument: it is not "therefore God doesn't exist" but rather "therefore I can not believe in the existence of God" but it speaks nothing toward whether or not God actually exists. It is about belief in the existence of God.
    You continue to fail to grasp this.
    So again there is mockery but no ridicule? :shrug:
    Strawman: no one is saying it has anything to do with theism, other than one needs to believe in the existence of God to be able to believe in God. This thread is about the existence of God, and the analogy of the teapot is valid, whether you think it mocks, ridicules, is silly, childish or anything else.
    And to reiterate, it does not prove God does not exist, it merely explains why some can not believe in the existence of God.
    Got it yet?
    Not sure that answers the question, although perhaps it does if you distinguish "believe in" from "believe in the existence of". But since my query was aimed exclusively at the latter, I realise the question was not ideally worded.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Yazata,

    Why is it important to believe in God's objective experience?

    What if nobody rises to your request, does this mean God does not exist?
    What do you do for yourself in a bid to be able to believe in God's objective experience?

    Well, as far I can understand, no one has been able to convince you of God's existence. So where do you go from here?

    They haven't pushed me over the edge at all.
    It's mockery pure and simple, with the intention to ridicule God, theism and theistic religion.
    I'm just rising above the baseless noise. You know, getting my voice heard. A lone voice in the wilderness and all that.
    Otherwise I'm having a blast.

    The question is: Why wouldn't there be?

    Doesn't it that mean they are exclusive to that person?
    Could it be something that you have not experienced as yet?

    So you are just left with: Is that person telling the truth, or not. End of.

    It's like asking: Why doesn't this round peg fit into this square hole? Oh I know. Because they are different shapes.

    How do you get to comparing these two scenario's in the first place?

    Do you really think that you should just have all the answers, in the precise way you want them, on demand?

    Good luck with your philosophical problem.
    Belief in God is natural to humans, and it always was. Which is why people believe. It stands to reason that if God exists, then the reality is, everything is evidence. I know you have go down the circular argument accusation route, but regardless it's true because God is the original cause. Of course that is IF He exists.

    Hmmm! Belief in God, natural, an essential component in human history, verses, atheist propoganda which bypasses the real meaning of God so that it can equate it with other modern-manmade nonsense. It's a no brainer. God wins everytime.


    Why do you want to believe in God's objective existence (whatever that is)?

    What if one day you realize that nobody give a toss whether you believe or not. What would you do? Would you find something else for someone to convince you of? Or would you just find a new interest?

    I had a full head of hair before entering this thread, but now I barely have a comb-over. Dammed that pesky Sarkus.

    Unless you can prove otherwise, can't you just believe that they are telling the truth?

    Maybe because it is personal to them.

    There doesn't have to be reasons. It is the most human of human phenomenons. You just can't access it at this moment. Some can play a musical instrument some people can't. That's just the way it is.

    You have your own capability, and at some point you will turn your attention to that ability.

    *just to let you know I'm whispering*

    You really don't know how they differ?

    Boy, your brainy, aren't you?
    Sorry, but that question is so academic the subject matter is lost.

    jan.

    jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  15. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    IOW, if it's not what you want to read, you don't bother reading,
     
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The usual - theism as we find it in real life, rather than the arbitrarily malleable, invisible, one-horned true theism you set up just out of sight for us to chase.

    I have no way of telling whether any given theist, or any theist anywhere, "believes in" their God in the proper way you find necessary. Nor do I care.

    Yep. Just like "Moby Dick".
    Your pool of true atheists is getting really small - now it excludes even people who can read a story with enjoyment and comprehension.

    With so few true theists and true atheists to worry about, maybe we can talk about the common issues of real life - the theism and atheism surrounding us daily, the self-described theistic and self-described atheistic we meet in these threads and around town generally.

    There are reasons some people can play a musical instrument and others can't.

    There are also reasons some people do play a musical instrument and others don't. They are not the same reasons as can and can't, btw.

    And everyone who can and does play a musical instrument knows this. One would think anyone who could and did believe in your God would know it as well. You are raising the possibility that you are atheistic yourself - engaged in a more or less desperate attempt to develop some kind of a belief in the Abrahamic God of the Bible, but clueless as to how or why anyone does.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Sarkus,



    LOL! Well thought out man.


    Not.



    Feeling cold is the experience. Sorry.



    Nice try, but that wasn’t the issue.

    The question is: Is someone likely to interpret their cold feeling as a warm one. Answer: Nope.



    The operative word being ‘’may’’.

    Apart from that, what is the experience factor in seeing a ghost?

    How does the body decide that it’s just experienced a ghost?



    That’s why it’s called illusion, and that’s why there exits religion, a method on how to condition yourself to discriminate between reality and illusion.



    We both know I don’t need to because you do understand its relevance.



    Why and how will you know?



    Another evasion?

    Where is the strawman?



    Obviously. Because you’re an atheist



    Equating God with them is an unnecessary thing to do, unless you’re using it for something. In this case, maybe to give justification/affirmation to your current position.



    It’s absurd because it is designed to be absurd.

    Why do you assume belief in God, absurd?

    Is it because the explanation through absurdity suggests it?

    Why isn’t the statement God does not exist, sufficient?



    If you need to invent an explanation, that reveals the absurdity felt by you, and other atheists, it stands to reason that atheist believe that belief in God is absurd.
    By equating God to kiddy characters, mean you see God as something like a kiddy character.


    Yet you admit that God doesn’t exist, while claiming you don’t know whether or not God exists, and expressing your understanding of God through absurdity.

    Can you see why nothing you say about yourself can be taken with anything less than a pinch of salt?



    I’m saying that is his intention. The analogy suggest God is analogous to kiddy characters. Adults, or teenagers generally would feel embarrassed to be known for believing in Daffy Duck or Scooby Dooby Doo. But what is the justification for putting God in this category?



    It is as much ridicule, as me calling you a stupid little girl,

    How can he be ridiculing my belief in God if he’s not addressing it?

    The reason why you cannot believe in the existence of God is primarily because God does not exist to you. I’m just cutting out the middle-man (so to speak).



    It is ridicule to people who equate God with Daffy Duck, but not to theists.

    You forgot to mention it equates God with kiddy characters.
    The hidden agenda.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Ah. I see I am being ignored. Well, never mind.

    This God of yours is supposed to be all powerful, able to perform miracles etc. It seems to me that it wouldn't be difficult for God to arrange a clear demonstration of his supernatural power for the benefit of those doubting atheists, or the people who believe in false gods. Really, any miracle that clearly messes with the known laws of nature would do the trick - and after all, that's what miracles are, right?

    But whenever theists claim physical evidences of God, invariably it is "miracle" cures that may have happened anyway, or weeping statues that can be shown to have natural causes, or unverifiable personal anecdotes. And so on.

    It's the same with people who think space aliens are visiting Earth. If they were able to do that, why hide and reveal themselves to backwoods hicks and nuts? Why not land their starships on the lawn of the White House?

    Nobody equates the FSM or the orbiting teapot to God. Those things are illustrations about the need for evidence. Why don't you believe that a teapot orbits the Sun? Because there's no evidence that would give you a rational reason to believe in such a thing.

    It's not a difficult analogy, yet theists struggle with it. And instead of confronting the point head on, they instead fold their arms and complain about how insulted they feel about this supposed "equating" of a teapot to their God.

    I can't see radio waves, yet I know they exist. It is simplistic to suppose that because something is invisible to ordinary human sense that therefore it doesn't exist. Existence can be inferred from all kinds of evidence.

    The atheist argument against the existence of God is that there is no good evidence of any kind that points us unambiguously towards this thing called God. Compare and contrast radio waves, for example.

    The pink unicorn is the same as the orbiting teapot. We don't believe in them because there's no compelling evidence that points us in that direction. See?

    That's a good question.

    I think it's important because we know that the human mind is apt to play tricks on itself. Individuals can convince themselves of the existence of all kinds of things that actually have no objective existence. So when somebody makes a claim that something exists - like space aliens landing on Earth, say - then we should check to see whether it's something about them that leads them to make the claim, or whether the claim is objectively true. Otherwise, we risk wasting a lot of time and effort chasing ghosts that have no reality.

    This raises another problem: magical thinking.

    Once you accept that magic can happen, you're open to believing all kinds of things for which there is no good evidence. If you believe in magic, then you can believe that ghosts can exist inside solid walls and can talk to real people outside. You can believe that in spite of the laws of physics and all of your ordinary experience of the world, because it's magic, and with magic anything is possible.

    Once you throw science out in favour of magic, your mind can become so open that your brains fall out.

    You may be right that human have a tendency to believe - a tendency towards magical thinking. There may be good evolutionary reasons for that. But the fact that many people believe in something doesn't mean that it exists. That, as I'm sure you can see, is quite a different matter.

    You mean in the sense that God is supposed to have created everything. Without God, nothing. Therefore, anything implies God? Sure, that follows if you start with certain assumptions about God. But to deduce that because something exists, therefore God exists doesn't work, because there may be reasons why something exists that have nothing to do with God.

    If you start with your conclusion, of course you'll see that all evidence points towards the conclusion. You've already eliminated all other explanations of the evidence, before you start.

    How is God an "essential" component in human history? Do you think human history is teleological? Please explain.

    Also, you keep alluding to the "real meaning of God". What is that? Something that only you have access to? How do you know your God isn't just ancient manmade nonsense? You're making an assumption again.
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't concur that there is only one concept of God. And it's unnecessary for me to have my own concept in order to debate about your concept. You've already stated your concept over and over, and that's all that's necessary. You don't understand the nature of debate, and you are condescending in your ignorance.

    Anyway, the most common conception of God is that of a personal God, who created everything, is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and is personally involved in our daily lives. If he isn't benevolent, then he isn't worth worshiping. If he isn't all powerful and all knowing, he isn't really a God.

    Try having a conversation like a normal human being.
     
  20. Pachomius Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    219
    Thanks everyone for your posts.

    Let us all exert to be systematic in our thinking and writing.

    My intention in requiring you all to put your information datum of the concept of God at the top of your post is so that we can start from a logical launching pad of departure in our exchange.

    The objective of this thread is for me to prove that God exists, and you atheists God does not exist.

    And I being the author of the thread it is incumbent upon me to effect that the discussion follows as much as possible a logical rhyme and reason.

    What better way to be logical than to already at the start for me as the author and thus initiator of the discussion to put forth my concept of God?

    You are also entitled to set forth your concept of God even though you don’t accept that God exists.

    Once we get all the concepts of God together then we will work to concur which concept of God to agree to focus on, so that I will labor to prove He exists according to the agreed on concept of God, and you atheists work to disprove that He does not exist in concept as agreed upon.

    Isn’t that a logical departure launching pad to any debate?

    So, here is my concept of God:

    [In concept] God is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning.​

    Now, you each one keen on observing systematic thinking and writing, you set forth your data of information of the concept of God you have in your mental database, okay?

    Do not be deterred by the fear that with setting forth the information of the concept of God you have in your mental database, you already admit the existence of God.

    That is a groundless fear, because your proferred concept of God is just for the joining of issue; otherwise, I ask you, how can we ever be talking about the same thing, when you have another concept of the thing and I have also another concept different to yours?

    Tell me then if you do have any apprehension, and let us talk about it, and hopefully resolve it to mutual satisfaction.



    Annex


    Atheists and unicorns
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/to...-conflate-god-with-invisible-unicorns.143034/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    That is never going to turn into a concept of God, no matter how many times you repeat it. It's always going to be a couple of criteria your concept of God, if you ever came up with one, would have to meet.
     
  22. fogpipe Registered Member

    Messages:
    78
    This just strikes me of the grown up version of one child informing another that santa claus doesnt exist and the ensuing debate.

    Just let them have their delusion. They arent really dangerous until they get control of a government or get socially or politically involved.
    Oh, wait

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Ok go get em

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Pattern recognition and a lack of critical thinking.
    The same way that a seminar on ghost-hunting is part of a method on how to condition yourself to discriminate between real ghosts and mere illusions.
    Well avoided. Care if I use this tactic against you, just to show you how childish you are being?
    We both know I don't need to tell you because you already know. Wow, see how ridiculous this tactic of yours is!?
    But to answer your question, I will know because I will be able to justify the position to myself, and to others, using logic and other tools available to me, such as critical thinking.
    It was explained with "no one has said it makes the person". Since you argued against what no one actually said, it is a strawman.
    A rather odd statement to make, as you seem to be implying that the label somehow causes the reason why the label is applicable.
    No, it is to explain the justification already held, but in a manner that highlights the issue... through exaggeration etc.
    It is designed to be absurd, but not with regard the belief in God itself, only in the subject of the analogous belief (I.e. The teapot or the FSM etc). These are specifically absurd to highlight that if you believe in God when there is no evidence, the same logic might lead you to believe in absurd things.
    I don't think belief in God absurd. This is just your ongoing misunderstanding of the analogy being used.
    Because firstly it is not a statement that matches the position the analogy is for! and secondly, even if it was, it doesn't explain why, or give the person any understanding or insight into the thought process of why.
    Again you proceed with your misunderstanding.
    I don't feel any absurdity. On the whole I don't find belief in the existence of God to be absurd at all but rather understandable.
    Your fallacy here is in thinking that we are saying that anything for which there is no evidence is therefore absurd. Certainly there are absurd notions that have no evidence for their existence, but there are also rather mundane notions for which there is also no evidence, such as an original cause, the cause of life on earth etc.
    Only if you continue to misunderstand what people tell you.
    I admit that God does not exist for me, in that I live my practical life as though God does not exist - or more accurately I do not live my life as though He does. But I do not know that God does not exist. That is the distinction.
    Secondly I do not express my understanding of God through absurdity, this is just your ongoing misunderstanding, which hopefully has been addressed above.
    It's not putting God in that category. With regard the teapot it is doing so only with regard the amount of evidence some feel there is for them, but no one is doing it with regard Daffy Duck or Scooby... Everyone knows they are cartoon creations.
    That said, I've more evidence for the nature of Daffy's existence than God's. And yes, it would be odd to "believe in" Daffy, but since we are talking about "belief in the existence of"... your attempts to turn it to being about "belief in" are nothing but strawmen.
    Okay, so now you're landing on the side of there being no ridicule... yet you have complained incessantly about it being ridicule.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This is nothing but a tautology: if you don't believe in the existence of something then that means the something does not exist to you. It is not a cause, it is merely a restatement of the same thing.
    But accepting itI also didn't believe in the existence of my brother because he did not exist to me. Then I saw him, and now I believe in his existence.
    Go figure.
    But had I never seen him, would that affect his actual existence?
    If people already equate God with Daffy Duck then there is no ridicule there either.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page