Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[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]

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.

 

[Trek]

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

You’re right but it also means not enough of.

You'd have to ask them.

Obviously I can’t.
Just as a guess I would say animals are neither atheist or theists. Those designations appear to be unique to humans.

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.

I agree.
This is why I think there is a deeper discussion to be had.

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.

i think all the designations are simply all the different variations ranging from knowing God exists to the opposite end of knowing God does not exist, and unique individual positions in between.
Different genres of music is really just variations of rhythm and melody just like varying positions on the reality of God.

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.

Interesting…
How is possible to know you have no knowledge of God?
On what basis to you filter out the information of God which helped you to understand that you lack a belief based on not knowing anything about God?

Because I am agnostic I see no reason to believe. I don't hold with Pascal's wager, for example.

Do you reject all information about God in order to maintain your agnosticism?
Or do you decide that the information that you receive is not knowledge of God?

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.

I personally agree that if God does not exist, then there is NO knowledge. Period.
I’ll add further that if God doesn’t exist, there is no such thing as existence.

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.

Sure!
Until they open their mouths and start talking about God. Then it is easy to tell if they actually believed in God or not.
It becomes more obvious when they start dodging questions, talk about God and theists disparigingly, get triggerered, start calling you names and so on.

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.

Aside from the extreme strong atheist, no, they haven’t. I’m not convinced that “there’s no evidence” is a sufficient reason compared to their damning rhetoric of God and theists.
To date bar one, not one has been capable of having an intelligent discussion regarding their position on God outside of the “no evidence” rhetoric. Furthermore no one seems able to have a decent conversation about God without descending into the usual atheist rhetoric I mentioned.

In the UK.and much or Europe, for example, we can enjoy secular living with minimal intrusion. Other countries are perhaps not so lucky.

That is the region of the world I am referring to.
Most atheist (if not all) on here are from the the western societal hemisphere. They were not forced to believe in God. I’m from the UK. I don’t ever remember a time when theism was forced down our throats, yet people act as though there was such a time.

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

How can it be wrong?

Sure, but at least science has easily shared evidence.

That is due to the purpose of science which is to know what there is to know about the natural world. But compared to every single phenomena be it natural, physical, meta-physical, mental, individuality, spirituality, inspiration, intuitiveness, emotion, intelligence, ego, and whole host of phenomena that make this world and our understanding of it what it is, far outweighs the tiny slice of knowledge we attain from scientific observation.

I am atheist.
I currently lack belief in any notion of God that I have come across.

So do I. Unless I can understand what is coming across, then I can better discriminate.
But that is based on my inner understanding.
So what is your inner understanding? The part of you that discriminates between good and bad information about God

Have I heard them all? No, but I lack belief in all things that I have not heard of.

Based on….?

 

[Trek]

They end up believing their understanding of the word.

Or lack belief in their understanding of the word.
Isn’t that what we all do, in every accept of inquiry?

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.

Well if the Big Bang is fact, there must have been an unnatural state to cause a natural state, hence nature created itself. Now talk about meaningless. So whether we like it or not, based on big bang evidence we have to accept it. No?

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

I get the paradox.
But it doesn’t take from the point I’m making.
In order to solve these paradoxes we have to at least understand the nature of such a being.
Do you agree?
To stop at them and claim the God concept illogical and faulty, is to be dismissive of God imo.

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.

And they discount any evidence or explanation of evidence they come across while all the time saying there could be a God, but to date no one or no evidence as convinced me. It seems they have adopted an atheist attitude to maintain their agnostic tendencies

 

[Trek]

I think men made up gods.

Based on what?

 

[Trek]

God is, by most accounts, a pretty big deal.

Can you elaborate on that?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What is extraordinary about God?
And why is abiogenesis not classed as extraordinary?

 

[Trek]

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

I’m sorry about that..

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

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm 74, I've seen all the flippin' evidence-like agendas in one form or another. Nothing seen yet that would convince a rational person.

 

[Trek]

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

Define “bad evidence”

You know, like pretty much everything said about or attributed to your god.

Sure…
Can you answer the question?
You’ve been exemplary thus far with answering questions

 

[Trek]

I'm 74, I've seen all the flippin' evidence-like agendas in one form or another. Nothing seen yet that would convince a rational person.

You’ve seen all the evidence?
That’s impressive!
But you’ve still yet to answer the question.
It is a simple yes or no.

 

[Trek]

Evidence is a broad spectrum.

Some types of evidence are very weak; lending itself to an array of explanations. Testimonials and anecdotal documentation are weak.
Some types of evidence are strong; it can be tested by independent studies, in controlled conditions, and repeatably.

Naturally, you know that just any old evidence will not do. God is, by most accounts, a pretty big deal. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Why do you ask such a hypothetical question? Unless you're going to do an about face, there isn't going to be any evidence presented, but I would very much enjoy being wrong.

Answer the the question please

 

[Sarkus]

You’re right but it also means not enough of.

Okay, but we're talking about lack of belief. Belief is a binary concept - you either have belief X, or you do not. Thus lack thereof is similarly binary.

Obviously I can’t.
Just as a guess I would say animals are neither atheist or theists. Those designations appear to be unique to humans.

When saying that you would have to ask them, I was more thinking about people who are ignorant of God, if you could find one.
Animals, I would agree, are neither, as they are not able to even consider the proposition.

i think all the designations are simply all the different variations ranging from knowing God exists to the opposite end of knowing God does not exist, and unique individual positions in between.

Well, it's true they all try to describe one's epistemological and/or ontological position with regard God.
However, note that you have now mentioned that there are positions from "knowing God exists" to "knowing God does not exist". These are mutually exclusive propositions. One is not true. Which rather suggests that neither actually know, but just believe they know.

Interesting…
How is possible to know you have no knowledge of God?
On what basis to you filter out the information of God which helped you to understand that you lack a belief based on not knowing anything about God?

If God is a meaningless concept to someone then that person can, by dint of it being meaningless, have no knowledge of it.

Do you reject all information about God in order to maintain your agnosticism?
Or do you decide that the information that you receive is not knowledge of God?

Knowledge is a justified true belief (with caveats that philosophers continue to discuss). While many can justify their belief, it's the "true" aspect that everyone singularly struggles with. At best one can believe it is true, and maybe can even justify that belief to themselves. But how do they then know that that belief is true? And so it goes.
At best I think one can take things on faith. I have no such faith, as I'm content with simply accepting that I don't know. And since I don't know, I do not have the belief one way or the other.

I personally agree that if God does not exist, then there is NO knowledge. Period.
I’ll add further that if God doesn’t exist, there is no such thing as existence.

No, that's begging the question - and defining "God" into existence.
If God does not exist then clearly God was not needed for existence, and thus your definition / understanding of God (as being necessary for, or part of, or the cause of existence) is incorrect.
See, both sides can play the same game, and noone is any the closer as a result.

Sure!
Until they open their mouths and start talking about God. Then it is easy to tell if they actually believed in God or not.
It becomes more obvious when they start dodging questions, talk about God and theists disparigingly, get triggerered, start calling you names and so on.

Not sure I agree. I think one can believe and then fall out of belief, as one's information processing capabilities change.
Just as I think one can not believe, and then find one day that they do.

Aside from the extreme strong atheist, no, they haven’t. I’m not convinced that “there’s no evidence” is a sufficient reason compared to their damning rhetoric of God and theists.

"There's no evidence" speaks volumes for why they don't believe. It speaks to the epistemological philosophy that they adhere to (or closely to).

To date bar one, not one has been capable of having an intelligent discussion regarding their position on God outside of the “no evidence” rhetoric. Furthermore no one seems able to have a decent conversation about God without descending into the usual atheist rhetoric I mentioned.

Which raises the question of why you bother with them?

That is the region of the world I am referring to.
Most atheist (if not all) on here are from the the western societal hemisphere. They were not forced to believe in God. I’m from the UK. I don’t ever remember a time when theism was forced down our throats, yet people act as though there was such a time.

Europe is different to the US, though. And the US is going through a period where religion is encroaching upon their lives. While they claim there is a division between church and state it is gradually eroding. Just look at the question of abortion, where the right wing Supreme Court have asserted their Christian beliefs and pushed the issue back to the individual states to decide. And some of these are more deeply religious than others, and as such ban abortion, some with no excpetion for rape, incest, mother's life in jeopardy etc. This is religious belief being thrust upon people who hold different views.
True, it's not wholly a religious matter, but it is an example of taking away individual's freedom to choose and asserting a position based on, for the most part, religion.

We, in the UK, are far luckier in that regard. The UK is more secular than it has ever been, and other European countries are even more so.

How can it be wrong?

If there is no God. If your understanding of God, that God is required for existence, is just a case of question-begging, and your definition is wrong.

That is due to the purpose of science which is to know what there is to know about the natural world. But compared to every single phenomena be it natural, physical, meta-physical, mental, individuality, spirituality, inspiration, intuitiveness, emotion, intelligence, ego, and whole host of phenomena that make this world and our understanding of it what it is, far outweighs the tiny slice of knowledge we attain from scientific observation.

Sure, I am not of the opinion that science can tell us everything. But I am also of the opinion that one will struggle to achieve knowledge in any other branch. You can claim knowledge, you can believe it, but as argued above, it's just a chain of believing, and not actually knowledge.

So do I. Unless I can understand what is coming across, then I can better discriminate.
But that is based on my inner understanding.
So what is your inner understanding? The part of you that discriminates between good and bad information about God

It starts with the definition, and whether it makes sense to me. If it doesn't, end of discussion, usually, at least as it pertains to my own belief/lack thereof.
I'm happy to work with other people's definition and explore, discuss etc. But not so often these days, as there's little new.

Based on….?

Based on my beliefs being about things I am aware of.

 

[Sarkus]

Or lack belief in their understanding of the word.
Isn’t that what we all do, in every accept of inquiry?

Forgive me: "every accept of inquiry"? Not sure I know what you mean? Typo/spell-check issue?
Yes, everything we either believe or don't believe about X is based on our understanding of X.

Well if the Big Bang is fact, there must have been an unnatural state to cause a natural state, hence nature created itself. Now talk about meaningless. So whether we like it or not, based on big bang evidence we have to accept it. No?

No. The Big Bang can only go as far back as the start of time. I.e. to t=0.
It says nothing about when time did not exist.

I get the paradox.
But it doesn’t take from the point I’m making.
In order to solve these paradoxes we have to at least understand the nature of such a being.

That's assuming that they can be solved. Actual paradoxes can not be, only "apparent paradoxes" - i.e. ones that initially look as though they are but aren't - have solutions. Making stuff up to solve actual paradoxes is just speculation, unless you have proof, of course? If you want to believe the answer you come up with is true, sure, go for it. Then all you have to do is convince others. Or keep it to yourself.

Do you agree?

To stop at them and claim the God concept illogical and faulty, is to be dismissive of God imo.

Feel free to explain a concept of God that you don't think is meaningless, or paradox-inducing.

And they discount any evidence or explanation of evidence they come across while all the time saying there could be a God, but to date no one or no evidence as convinced me. It seems they have adopted an atheist attitude to maintain their agnostic tendencies

No, they are simply adhering to the epistemological philosophy they follow, and are content to say "I don't know".
Look, if someone says "the only evidence I accept is scientific", for example, then there's no point in even trying to provide them with non-scientific evidence, as it just doesn't fit with their philosophy. You can't really complain that they won't accept your evidence. Just accept that there's a fundamental difference in what you accept, and move on.

 

[Sarkus]

Arguments based on evidence. The Big Bang theory being an obvious example

But they're not themselves evidence, so you shouldn't provide them as being such. If they're based on evidence, then provide that evidence, and then explain why it is evidence for your theory (God) and not evidence for the competing theory (not-God). If it supports both theories then it is not useful.

I can’t prove God’s existence. There’s no trying.

We agree.

Furthermore nobody can prove anything, and we see that explanations of scientific evidence is just as subjective as as explanations for God without reverting to scientific evidence.

We only have these discussions about evidence and proof because there are people who argue that there is no God, and that science is the only way to obtain knowledge/truth.

Sure, and if you disagree with that, move on, as you should know that you won't be able to convince them otherwise while adhering to what they consider as the means of establishing knowledge/truth. If you want to convince them you have to be able to do so while playing by their rules.
Changing their rules is far harder. And either way, your best bet would just to move on.

I agree.

I understand what is meant by “God is everything” but it requires more than that phrase to bring it to a point where we can all understand what meant by that.
But as a stand alone statement, I see your point.

It is due to this thread why I ask the questions I do. If people cannot answer those simple questions I posed, in this thread, then I doubt they will in another thread.

You're trying to do so in a thread where you're aware of the bias, of the agenda, and where you know from the outset that you're onto a loser with regard discussion. So why bother?

 

[DaveC426913]

Just as a guess I would say animals are neither atheist or theists. Those designations appear to be unique to humans.

Interesting that you would suggest this.

Your definition of atheist was pretty binary. You said atheists are "without God". Animals are pretty without God. That would make them atheists. It would make any person who doesn't know about God (such as an infant or remote primitive tribal member) atheist as well.