Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[Trek]

A "positive belief" about X is a belief about some property of X. E.g. "I believe God exists" is a belief about the property of existence as it relates to God. Similarly "I believe God does not exist" is also a belief about the property of existence as it applies to God.

I get that.
But why use “positive” to express belief?
It’s no biggie.

Compare that to "I lack belief that God exists". This is not a positive belief. It is a statement about the absence of any positive belief.

Firstly “lack” is not a fixed position. It doesn’t mean you are “without”. It has a sliding scale.
So you must personally know and understand what a lack of belief means to you (not you personally).

To “understand” means there is an intended meaning of the words you use to describe your position. So I would agree that for most atheists (if not all) a lack of belief in God means without a belief in God, and while you may not holds “positive belief in your atheism, you hold a belief in the reasons for your atheism. A theist also believes in the reasons for their theism. It is the reason we hold why we are theist or atheist

Yes, but bear in mind that people who believe that God does not exist are a subset of people that do not have the belief that God exists.

What is the status with regards to God on the latter of the two?
Do you think being ignorant of God makes one an atheist? Are animals atheists?

Both are atheists, as long (in my view, at least) they have considered the matter of "God exists", even if they subsequently conclude that God is unknown to them.

It can be that both are atheist. Definitely the former would be designated atheist. But the latter is not so simple in my opinion. For example the guys name who lives in the house at the end of my street is unknown to me, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one. God can be unknown to me, but it doesn’t necessarily default to atheism. I still have to make my mind up if asked.
And that’s where belief formulates. So both sides have belief, but one sides belief develops into atheism and the other, theism.


Another thing, because God is unknown to you doesn’t mean you are an atheist. You could just as well be a theist, because God is not known fully to anyone. To be an atheist one has knowledge their atheism meaning they have to give reason for it, and like I said before the belief evolves through reason, knowledge and understanding of God, even if you are modelling your reason off theists testimony.
Hence my questions for atheists

Sure. So what?
There may be many reasons why one does not give God any thought, and some of those will be the lack of knowledge and/or understanding.

Agreed!
I’d like to add that ultimately we are all lacking in knowledge and understand in varying degrees.

Sure, people can be mistaken - or lie.
But usually one's conclusion on such matters comes after considering the matter.

It could be a surface belief, not necessarily mistaken, or a lie. But based on a superficial understanding. A lot of religious people maybe had what they thought was a belief in God, only to find out that they didn’t have a belief, and become atheist later. I wouldn’t regard them as mistaken, or lying.

If one concludes that they lack belief that God exists, presumably they do so because they lack belief that God exists.

What do they base their conclusion on?
That is what I’m interested in.

Usually, however, because we don't know what the person is thinking, or how they think, a good starting point is to take their word for it, until such time as they demonstrate otherwise.

I agree.
But when they start asserting stuff like they do in this forum, about God, theism, theists, and religion. Then they should be required to explain their position if asked. To not do so implies their position is either correct, or the standard default, which should be discussed if asked

The label is there, sure. But the actual existence or meaningfulness of what that label references is what people consider and conclude upon. One can not simply define something into existence, for example.
If you want to get more metaphysical, and claim God is existence itself, then you get into issues of pointlessness of the label, and meaninglessness.
Your example of the break up is to beg the question of God's existence, though. A fallacious analogy.

I agree that defining things into existences leads to nowhere. But that’s what we are here to discuss, and to see whether or not God is real, or the possibility of God is real. It is as if the atheists on here, while asking for evidence of God, doesn’t want actually discuss the evidence no matter if it is perceived as weak, or where it comes from. It seems they only want to justify their own position by shooting everything down, even though they cannot even explain what it is they don’t believe in, or why they don’t believe, outside the now boring standard of there is no evidence. That says nothing about anything.
Do you agree?

One could start a thread, and clearly define what is meant by Gliptz at the start, so that people are on the same page from the start. Others could then chip in and disagree with that definition.

I think that would be a short lived thread. I doubt you’d get the constant “what’s the evidence it exists” more than a couple of times. The reason being nobody would give a shit. The same can’t be said for God. Atheists (some) like to give the excuse that they live in a world where people accept God as real, and this has an impact in their life. For the majority of atheists, I call bull crap on that. I know a ton of atheists who are not at all into God or religion. They just want to bash them. This thread, my warnings, and my bans are a testament to that.

To assume that everyone has the same understanding of "God" is to just ask for trouble, imo.

Why?
There is only one God.
But in a sense you’re right, because there are many aspects to God, and Gods nature. This one can understand the more one studies the scripture (bible for me).

But do we all have the same understanding? No.

That applies to everything, even science.
That is why we can use tools like logic to reign in the discipline and not get too fanciful.

It is the lack of belief that God exists. Just as one might lack the belief that you're wearing a hat. You may be. You may not be. At least in this example I know what a hat is, and I know what it is to wear a hat.

I’m not sure if you’re designation, but if you were atheist and you don’t what God is, at some level of understanding that theists have, then it begs the question what is it you lack a belief in.

But I have no reason to believe that you either are or are not wearing one - i.e. I hold no positive belief on the matter.

Belief is not necessary because you understand that he may or may not be wearing a hat. Both situation are possible. End of.

With God you have the added issue of what is actually being referred to, and whether that even has any meaning - or is it a case of "what happened before time began"?

Why wouldn’t it have meaning?
Do you think people just go around talking about a word, and end up believing that word? No I don’t thinks so.

If time did begin, then how do you come to conclude meaninglessness that it was not preceded by some agency that is not subject to time?

Those who believe in God (or believe God exists if you want to consider them separately) must necessarily believe they have sufficient understanding of what they are referring to with the term "God". They use the term with an understanding behind it.

The same applies to those who don’t believe in God, or believe God exists. Sufficient understand has to be present in all belief.
Atheists believe there is no evidence for God.
Therefore they must know to some extent what is God, and what evidence of God should look like. If they don’t again it begs the question what are they talking about

That is not to say their understanding is accurate, but they at least believe their understanding is sufficient. Who am I to say they are right or wrong.

Agreed.

Don’t respond just yet as there is more to come

…

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But what makes you think God is fictional?

What makes you think the tooth fairy is fictional?

 

[Pinball1970]

Why?
The questions I ask is related to this thread, and is not a new thread subject matter. They are very simple, and you guys should easily answer them.
So this or any thread where atheists stipulate there is no evidence for God without explaining why you think there is no evidence/proof, and what would evidence would allow you to accept that God is real

I have one criticism of this site and all the others I have been on. That is the fact that the titles are not respected. So a newcomer checks out a thread, say, "Prove your god is real," and instead of getting comments regarding, the creation, fine tuning, complexity of life and scripture, they get some atheist talking about why they don't believe.

I am happy to talk about why I reject all arguments for god, just start a new thread and respect this one.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You do know the last atheist that posed in this thread was the OP?

 

[Trek]

I have one criticism of this site and all the others I have been on. That is the fact that the titles are not respected. So a newcomer checks out a thread, say, "Prove your god is real," and instead of getting comments regarding, the creation, fine tuning, complexity of life and scripture, they get some atheist talking about why they don't believe.

I am happy to talk about why I reject all arguments for god, just start a new thread and respect this one.

I’m not asking you or anyone to reject the argument. I’m asking what do you think God is, and why you believe/think there is no evidence? Is it a personal reason?
And what would you accept as evidence?
If rejecting the evidence is integral to your answer then that’s ok. But I’m not really interested in a thread where we debate does god exist. They are boring af.
I just want to know what you’re all talking about with regard to God. You could easily just respond to this post with that info, so I know if we’re on the right track.
But if you continue to dodge then I’ll know we aren’t talking about the same concept.

 

[Trek]

Provide some specifics, please, if you want to examine this further.
More generally, if a piece of evidence supports both the claim and the counter-claim equally then it is of no help in moving the dial toward one or the other.

It’s just the norm cosmological, teleological, argument from complexity. I do regard those as evidence. But I’m not interested at the moment in trying to prove evidence of God’s existence.
See it as throwing my hat in the ring, responding to what the OP may have meant instead of asking for proof.
But I noticed that the a at least a couple of atheists on here are very reluctant to answer my questions. I find this very telling. Plus I’ll know they’re not talking about the Almighty God (as well as gods) is is litererally states in bothe designations Theist (Theos) Which literally means belief in God., and God also figures in Atheist (a Theos) Which literally means without a belief in God. The Greeks had an understanding of God, and gods. It means something very profound whether you believe or not. This thread, and other threads do not discuss God in the proper way. They talk disparagingly about God on purpose. Why?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

See it as throwing my hat in the ring, responding to what the OP may have meant instead of asking for proof.

I said what I said. Wander off into the Tugley Wood if you wish to start a thread on what I MEANT so say.

 

[Trek]

What makes you think the tooth fairy is fictional?

I said what I said. Wander off into the Tugley Wood if you wish to start a thread on what I MEANT so say.

That’s what I said. You said proof, and I responded to that. I said no one can prove anything so the question is null and void.

I read your post responding to my questions.
Thanks for that. And for showing how simple it is.
You believe that God does not exist. So for you God is but a word that people respond to.

But why post this thread because nothing anybody says is going to persuade you.
Were you just trolling?
Because you can!

 

[Trek]

What makes you think the tooth fairy is fictional?

Good question.
They seem fictional to me because they were always told in a child/kiddie light.
It was always in the same kind of category as Paddington Bear, or Otta The Goldfish.
It never seemed serious because grown ups never talked about them. Their primary purpose was to leave money for a tooth. But I never got any money so I wasn’t bothered.
When I was a young boy all things kiddie was never taken seriously, then as we grew up we naturally went on to more mature shows. We used to be scared shitlless watching Christopher Lee in the Dracula movies. But we always knew that it was designed to makes us scared, and comedies were designed to make us laugh.

My point is I never thought of things in terms of fiction and non fiction, we just knew instinctively that stuff was made up.
Which is why I am interested to know why you would think that God, in spite of your strong atheism, could be fiction. What did you base that conclusion on?

 

[foghorn]

If anyone is wondering about Trek’s and Jan Ardena’s interest in sound vibrations, it’s all to do with “ The Bible states that, in the beginning was the Word (sound), and the Word (sound), was God. “
My bold below.

I showed sound vibration transformed those random particles into complex patterns and shapes. The Bible states that, in the beginning was the Word (sound), and the Word (sound), was God.

I used that avatar to explain to one of you guys how things can instantly form by using sound vibration, as opposed to some ridiculously slow step by step process that occurred over a kazillion years. …...
….And I hope you entertain the possibility that all anotomical structures could have been formed this way, instantaneously.

 

[billvon]

But what makes you think God is fictional?

The god as defined in the Bible is almost certainly fictional; heck, even the Bible itself is self-contradictory, and as presented makes no sense. And while it makes little sense in the context of describing a god, it makes perfect sense in the context of a guide to setting up and evolving a religion. Between the various authors of the Old Testament and the New Testament, knowing the various translation errors, and learning about the efforts of the Council of Trent and the various Nicaean councils to harmonize it all - it becomes clear that the Bible contains all the traces of the various compromises and retcons that allowed the Catholic and related churches to remain a coherent belief system.

However, that leaves open the possibility of a god not defined by the bible, or defined only very accidentally and peripherally.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That’s what I said. You said proof, and I responded to that. I said no one can prove anything so the question is null and void.

I read your post responding to my questions.
Thanks for that. And for showing how simple it is.
You believe that God does not exist. So for you God is but a word that people respond to.

But why post this thread because nothing anybody says is going to persuade you.
Were you just trolling?
Because you can!

You have a real problem, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Which is why I am interested to know why you would think that God, in spite of your strong atheism, could be fiction. What did you base that conclusion on?

That made no sense. You are contradictory in the first sentence. God is a fiction of cowardly minds. Afraid of the dark, you lot are.

 

[Trek]

That made no sense. You are contradictory in the first sentence. God is a fiction of cowardly minds. Afraid of the dark, you lot are.

So you never came to that conclusion?
You just knew this.
That’s interesting
There’s not much more to say really

 

[Trek]

Th

If anyone is wondering about Trek’s and Jan Ardena’s interest in sound vibrations, it’s all to do with “ The Bible states that, in the beginning was the Word (sound), and the Word (sound), was God. “
My bold below.

Cyamatics is a well known phenomena, and is used to explain all manner of spiritual/meta-physical phenomena. The Bible is the most famous explanation probably in the world, of God uttering sounds to manipulate nature.
This information is not unique to anyone, or any religion.

 

[Trek]

You have a real problem, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Would you believe God is real if evidence that God is real was presented to you?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So you never came to that conclusion?
You just knew this.
That’s interesting
There’s not much more to say really

You didn't provide a conclusion, just a cluster F***.

 

[Sarkus]

Firstly “lack” is not a fixed position. It doesn’t mean you are “without”. It has a sliding scale.
So you must personally know and understand what a lack of belief means to you (not you personally).

If you "lack" something then you do not have it. It is a binary position.

What is the status with regards to God on the latter of the two?
Do you think being ignorant of God makes one an atheist? Are animals atheists?

You'd have to ask them. There is no single position.
As for being ignorant, while some consider anyone or anything that lacks a belief that God exists to be atheist, I am of the view that it needs to be a considered position.

It can be that both are atheist. Definitely the former would be designated atheist. But the latter is not so simple in my opinion. For example the guys name who lives in the house at the end of my street is unknown to me, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one. God can be unknown to me, but it doesn’t necessarily default to atheism. I still have to make my mind up if asked.
And that’s where belief formulates. So both sides have belief, but one sides belief develops into atheism and the other, theism.

What you're exampling is not atheism, though, but agnosticism: whether the question is unknowable (strong) or just unknown to you (weak). With regard God one can be an agnostic theist, although it is not common.

Another thing, because God is unknown to you doesn’t mean you are an atheist. You could just as well be a theist, because God is not known fully to anyone. To be an atheist one has knowledge their atheism meaning they have to give reason for it, and like I said before the belief evolves through reason, knowledge and understanding of God, even if you are modelling your reason off theists testimony.
Hence my questions for atheists

You are conflating atheism and agnosticism. I am an atheist because I am agnostic: I have no knowledge of God. I am aware of what people say/believe about God, but I have no knowledge. This makes me agnostic.
Because I am agnostic I see no reason to believe. I don't hold with Pascal's wager, for example.

Agreed!
I’d like to add that ultimately we are all lacking in knowledge and understand in varying degrees.

Well, if God does not exist then we all lack knowledge, and those that claim to know God exists really only have belief, not knowledge.

It could be a surface belief, not necessarily mistaken, or a lie. But based on a superficial understanding. A lot of religious people maybe had what they thought was a belief in God, only to find out that they didn’t have a belief, and become atheist later. I wouldn’t regard them as mistaken, or lying.

Unless you are claiming to know their thinking, know precisely what they do and do not believe, you only have what they say to go by. So if they say they are theist or atheist then accept that that is what they are... until they show you otherwise.

What do they base their conclusion on?
That is what I’m interested in.

You'll have to ask them.

I agree.
But when they start asserting stuff like they do in this forum, about God, theism, theists, and religion. Then they should be required to explain their position if asked. To not do so implies their position is either correct, or the standard default, which should be discussed if asked

Most have explained why they think the way they do.
You may not like the answer, and it may not fit with the way you think. Ultimately if you don't like the way they respond, or you think a thread pointless etc then day as much and move on.

Do you agree?

I agree that such threads are of little value. I used to embroil myself in them, but these days I'm more sanguine.

Atheists (some) like to give the excuse that they live in a world where people accept God as real, and this has an impact in their life. For the majority of atheists, I call bull crap on that.

It depends on the society in which you live, and the restrictions placed upon you solely due to other's religious beliefs. In the UK.and much or Europe, for example, we can enjoy secular living with minimal intrusion. Other countries are perhaps not so lucky.

Why?
There is only one God.
But in a sense you’re right, because there are many aspects to God, and Gods nature. This one can understand the more one studies the scripture (bible for me).

Well, there's either one or none. Or more. God may be understood to be One, but if that understanding is wrong....

That applies to everything, even science.
That is why we can use tools like logic to reign in the discipline and not get too fanciful.

Sure, but at least science has easily shared evidence.

I’m not sure if you’re designation, but if you were atheist and you don’t what God is, at some level of understanding that theists have, then it begs the question what is it you lack a belief in.

I am atheist.
I currently lack belief in any notion of God that I have come across. Have I heard them all? No, but I lack belief in all things that I have not heard of.

Belief is not necessary because you understand that he may or may not be wearing a hat. Both situation are possible. End of.

Belief in God is not necessary.
I don't have it. You do. Both of us are here, tapping away. The world still turns.

Why wouldn’t it have meaning?
Do you think people just go around talking about a word, and end up believing that word? No I don’t thinks so.

They end up believing their understanding of the word.

If time did begin, then how do you come to conclude meaninglessness that it was not preceded by some agency that is not subject to time?

One can not have a state where we aren't, followed by a state where we are, without time already existing. It's a paradox. Hence meaningless.

One can posit a being capable of creating both an immovable object and a separate unstoppable one, but it would be meaningless.

The same applies to those who don’t believe in God, or believe God exists. Sufficient understand has to be present in all belief.

Sure, but not in lack of belief.

Atheists believe there is no evidence for God.

Not all of them.
some might think that there could be, but they are not currently aware of what it might be, but they don't discount the possibility.

Therefore they must know to some extent what is God, and what evidence of God should look like. If they don’t again it begs the question what are they talking about

I agree that the more one talks about something, then one should have an idea of what they're talking about.

 

[Sarkus]

It’s just the norm cosmological, teleological, argument from complexity. I do regard those as evidence. But I’m not interested at the moment in trying to prove evidence of God’s existence.

They're not evidence. They're arguments. Arguments can be logically valid without any actual evidence, and be entirely worthless beyond the validity of their form.
E.g. P1: All bananas play cricket.
P2: Fred is a banana.
C: therefore Fred plays cricket.

What is this argument evidence for?

I don't blame you for not trying to prove evidence of God's existence. For those who don't already believe that God exists it won't be evidence for God, but for non-God.
Unless you define God in a manner that begs the question. E.g. God is everything, therefore everything is evidence for God.
I'm not saying that that's what you're doing, or would do, just preempting.

See it as throwing my hat in the ring, responding to what the OP may have meant instead of asking for proof.
But I noticed that the a at least a couple of atheists on here are very reluctant to answer my questions. I find this very telling. Plus I’ll know they’re not talking about the Almighty God (as well as gods) is is litererally states in bothe designations Theist (Theos) Which literally means belief in God., and God also figures in Atheist (a Theos) Which literally means without a belief in God. The Greeks had an understanding of God, and gods. It means something very profound whether you believe or not. This thread, and other threads do not discuss God in the proper way. They talk disparagingly about God on purpose. Why?

Maybe start your own thread to ask and discuss that question.
Advice: if you don't like the premise of a thread, just say you don't agree with it, explain why, then move on and leave them to it.

 

[billvon]

Cyamatics is a well known phenomena, and is used to explain all manner of spiritual/meta-physical phenomena. The Bible is the most famous explanation probably in the world, of God uttering sounds to manipulate nature.

Well, also Isis. Egyptian mythology has a character that can turn into the god Isis when they say the phrase "O mighty Isis!"

So I guess there's just as much proof that Isis is the One True God. More proof, actually, since there is a TV show about it.