Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Jan Ardena]

There will be "facts" you should both agree upon and "facts" that you can't agree upon. A "facts" for Jan is based on a spiritual approach which has a god perhaps by his definition.
You, me and others have our "facts" based in science. I get a message from Jan that he may not be sending and I merely indulge guessing games, that belief works as much upon folk who base their life on science in so far we "accept" science has all the answers...in his view remember which I can only be a guess...perhaps that we have faith in science ... We do but I call it "confidence" ...we know that science is very reliable...so if that's the message I get it... Neither side can ever change the 'facts" when the other side uses different "facts"...
The first fact to nail down is did the universe have a start. Could either side find agreement?
I claim no start..what do you think Jan if you read this?
Can we agree?mmm just because we agree does that agreement make something fact .. come in scientific model to present facts that are somewhat proven.
No start suggests no creation point, well certainly on say Jan's view for God..I expect God has always been there ...but the universe is created and finite.
I say it is the universe that has always existed and was not created ... Our science strongly suggests that the universe has always been here...at least we can not find a point where there was nothing out of which came our universe. But then do scriptures describe creation of the universe..are perhaps just describing the formation (creation) of our solar system?
Alex

I don’t have to believe in God, to comprehend the fact, that the definition of God is that God is the origin of everything.

I don’t have to be a theist to know that (demi) gods are the creation of God.
The largest polytheist group today, are the Hindus. They worship different gods. But they also worship Vishnu, as the origin of everything, including gods.

They didn’t just decide to do it. It is a part of their culture. Nothing is made up.

So do you accept the definition of God.
Or are you unable to?

 

[(Q)]

Truth is the quality or state, of being true.

An apple is the quality or state of being an apple.
Notice, Jan, that you've said nothing.

It is not contingent any persons knowledge of it. You could say the truth is transcendental.

Nope. You are once again redefining words to suit your narrative.

That’s called hiding in plain sight.
The definition of God is, the origin of everything.
Your opinion doesn’t alter anything, neither does mine.
But for some reason you simply can’t accept the definition, as a definition.
Either you accept or deny.
You are in denial.

It would appear you never went to school to learn that the definitions of words don't make those things real or exist.
No one is in denial of definitions, Jan. You are displaying an incredibly weak argument based on denial of the English language.

 

[(Q)]

I don’t have to believe in God, to comprehend the fact, that the definition of God is that God is the origin of everything.

I don’t have to be a theist to know that (demi) gods are the creation of God.
The largest polytheist group today, are the Hindus. They worship different gods. But they also worship Vishnu, as the origin of everything, including gods.

They didn’t just decide to do it. It is a part of their culture. Nothing is made up.

So do you accept the definition of God.
Or are you unable to?

No one is unable to accept definitions of words, Jan. Dictionaries don't make things real, Jan. Grow up.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No one is unable to accept definitions of words, Jan. Dictionaries don't make things real, Jan. Grow up.

Never said they did.
If God is the origin of everything as defined, then that should be used when discussing God.
It seems as though you can’t.

 

[(Q)]

Never said they did.
If God is the origin of everything as defined, then that should be used when discussing God.
It seems as though you can’t.

Do you know what a dictionary is for, Jan? It defines words so people can agree on what other people are talking about. We can talk about God based on the general definition provided in most dictionaries, but that doesn't make God real or a truth in any way, shape or form. God is still just a belief, an illusion, words in a book and nothing more. The existence of God to be a truth would have to be based on facts and reality.

And yes, I know you've already stated God IS a reality, but that isn't true at all, except in your head. That would demonstrate you're either concocting the whole idea or you've divorced yourself from the reality we all share.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you know what a dictionary is for, Jan?

Yes.
Obviously you don’t.
Unless you’re in denial.

We can talk about God based on the general definition provided in most dictionaries, but that doesn't make God real or a truth in any way, shape or form.

It doesn’t matter. That is the definition.
So if we are discussing God, in any meaningful way. The definition of God should be used as a basic reference for the subject.
Do you agree?
Or is it okay to pick and choose you’re own definition of God, to suit your “atheist position”?

God real or a truth in any way, shape or form. God is still just a belief, an illusion, words in a book and nothing more.

Obviously the latter!
That’s your belief.
One that contradicts the meaning of God.
It’s little wonder you think the way you do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No one is unable to accept definitions of words, Jan. Dictionaries don't make things real, Jan. Grow up.

Okay!
Glad we got that out of the way, fr the umpteenth time.
You’re not trying to shift goalposts are you?

 

[Jan Ardena]

And yes, I know you've already stated God IS a reality, but that isn't true at all,

So now you invoke the word “true”. Interesting!
According to the definition of God owns reality (paraphrase).
So while that definition doesn’t make God real, it defines God. So why do you operate of a definition that has nothing to do with God, while claiming it does?

 

[(Q)]

So now you invoke the word “true”. Interesting!
According to the definition of God owns reality (paraphrase).

Definitions don't make things real, that's something you should have learned in school, like the rest of us.

So while that definition doesn’t make God real, it defines God.

So what? There is no evidence or facts or reality that shows the definition is true. It only shows what people believe is true.

So why do you operate of a definition that has nothing to do with God, while claiming it does?

I simply get definitions from reference books, just like everyone else, just like you should be doing. You seem to have this absurd idea that just because a definition exists, so does the thing it defines. Even children know that's not true.

 

[(Q)]

Okay!
Glad we got that out of the way, fr the umpteenth time.
You’re not trying to shift goalposts are you?

Is it really out of the way, Jan? Or, are you still going to invoke definitions of God as if they're real? We'll see.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Is it really out of the way, Jan?

Err! Yes!
You bring it up because you are unable to take part in the discussion in an honest way.
Typical fundie activity.

So what?

So what?
Truly classic.

There is no evidence or facts or reality that shows the definition is true.

There is if you stick to the definition.
God’s creation would be evidence of the claim.
Instead atheists change the definition of God, to whatever they want, ignoring proper definitions

I simply get definitions from reference books, just like everyone else, just like you should be doing.

I do use reference books. The problem is, you are dishonest. And want people to believe in you atheist philosophy of darwinism. No thanks. I’ve seen how you operate.
You’re not interested in truth.
Do you accept the dictionary definition of “Truth”? Or do you butcher that definition as well, to suit your dishonest needs?

You seem to have this absurd idea that just because a definition exists, so does the thing it defines.

You know I don’t.
Stop lying?
You just don’t want to admit I’m right, so you keep bringing this up.

 

[(Q)]

Err! Yes!
You bring it up because you are unable to take part in the discussion in an honest way.
Typical fundie activity.

So, I'm not honest because I keep telling you that definitions to words don't make those things real?

There is if you stick to the definition.

I have been sticking to the definition. Show me where I have not?

God’s creation would be evidence of the claim.

And, yet there is no evidence God created anything, that is merely your belief based on Scriptures.

Instead atheists change the definition of God, to whatever they want, ignoring proper definitions

Show where atheists have done that? Because, it's easy to show where you changed the definition, it has been brought to your attention on several occasions by several members.

I do use reference books.

No, you don't.

The problem is, you are dishonest. And want people to believe in you atheist philosophy of darwinism. No thanks. I’ve seen how you operate.

Strawman.

You’re not interested in truth.

Yes, I am, but your claim is that God is Truth, which you failed to support, even with definitions.

Do you accept the dictionary definition of “Truth”?

I do, but you don't.

Or do you butcher that definition as well, to suit your dishonest needs?

Nope, I've already posted the definition and you changed it to suit your narrative.

You know I don’t.
Stop lying?
You just don’t want to admit I’m right, so you keep bringing this up.

How can anyone admit you're right when you're clearly not right. Lying is when someone makes a claim that God is Truth, by definition. That was your claim, yet there are no definitions that support that claim. So, clearly, you are the one lying and you know it. Projecting your dishonesty onto me is pointless considering your words are all over this thread showing who indeed is the dishonest one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, I'm not honest because I keep telling you that definitions to words don't make those things real?

Yes. You are deflecting.
Running scared.

I have been sticking to the definition. Show me where I have not?

Yo do not accept the definition of God.
It is the main engine behind not accepting God.

And, yet there is no evidence God created anything, that is merely your belief based on Scriptures.

I’m not saying it’s true.
It is the definition.
From your position, there is no God. But you cannot explain why you disregard the definition.

Show where atheists have done that? Because, it's easy to show where you changed the definition, it has been brought to your attention on several occasions by several members.

It is the prime reason why atheist don’t believe in God. They are in denial of God’s definition.
They always act as though there is none. But there is, and you are in denial of it.

Strawman.

Wrong.
You don’t believe in truth. You believe in explanations that back your dishonest position.

Yes, I am, but your claim is that God is Truth, which you failed to support, even with definitions.

If God is defined as the origin of everything, the the truth must be according to God.
You don’t have to believe it, but that’s what it means.

Lying is when someone makes a claim that God is Truth, by definition.

No it’s not.
It’s the truth (by definition).

Projecting your dishonesty onto me is pointless considering your words are all over this thread showing who indeed is the dishonest one.

Stop whining!
You’ve been caught out.

 

[(Q)]

Yes. You are deflecting.
Running scared.
Yo do not accept the definition of God.
It is the main engine behind not accepting God.
I’m not saying it’s true.
It is the definition.
From your position, there is no God. But you cannot explain why you disregard the definition.
It is the prime reason why atheist don’t believe in God. They are in denial of God’s definition.
They always act as though there is none. But there is, and you are in denial of it.
Wrong.
You don’t believe in truth. You believe in explanations that back your dishonest position.
If God is defined as the origin of everything, the the truth must be according to God.
You don’t have to believe it, but that’s what it means.
No it’s not.
It’s the truth (by definition).
Stop whining!
You’ve been caught out.

Since everything you have said there is a blatant lie and you have no concept of what definitions of words mean because you believe definitions of words make them real and are just now projecting that dishonesty onto me, then I see no point in continuing this absurd discussion.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

They didn’t just decide to do it.

I expect their religion evolved and probably started when they were in the stone age perhaps worshipping animal spirits or the Sun.
One only has to look at Western religions to find they evolved from simple superstitious beginnings.

Nothing is made up.

Religion is all made up by humans your difficulty would be to show otherwise.

So do you accept the definition of God

Which one?
There are many invented gods and each description is somewhat a definition.

Defining a mythical being or creature does not make it real however.

The universe is no doubt eternal with no start and so there is little value in defining a creator and to do so is just making stuff up.

That is the value of science it does not make stuff up and does not make the unsupportable claim that it has the truth even though it's presentation is made up of observable facts.

Religion makes up everything it presents including its parown factsmade up facts parceled in a claim that it's the truth.

For you to protect your belief you must ignore looking at videos that tell the history of and evolution of religion. The history shows it is all made up ...all of it made up.

Are you able to find just one scripture that is not made up?

Anyways Jan I won't be around for some time so I now say goodbye and would encourage you to study the history and learn the various stages of development of the overall myth...you will find it informative I believe.

I suggest you start with cave paintings and move onto astrology in ancient times.
Perhaps look at the input via the Sumerians as their clay tablets seem to contain stories that were latter used to write the Bible. And learn about the various cults that worshipped human gods that were all constructed on an astrology base...
Have a great day.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Since everything you have said there is a blatant lie and you have no concept of what definitions of words mean because you believe definitions of words make them real and are just now projecting that dishonesty onto me, then I see no point in continuing this absurd discussion.

Run rabbit run rabbits run rabbit run run run!...

 

[Jan Ardena]

I expect their religion evolved and probably started when they were in the stone age perhaps worshipping animal spirits or the Sun.

Your entitled to your opinions.

One only has to look at Western religions to find they evolved from simple superstitious beginnings.

I don’t think so.
But you’re entitled to your opinions.

Religion is all made up by humans your difficulty would be to show otherwise.

Some are. Probably most.
But religion itself isn’t.
But that’s not what I was referring to.

Which one?

There’s only one.

Defining a mythical being or creature does not make it real however.

But it does define it nevertheless.
And you’re in denial.

That is the value of science it does not make stuff up and does not make the unsupportable claim that it has the truth even though it's presentation is made up of observable facts.

You’re not into science as much as you seem to think. You can’t event observe a definition,

The history shows it is all made up ...all of it made up.

No it doesn’t!
Why lie?

Are you able to find just one scripture that is not made up?

No.

 

[(Q)]

Jan believes that anything with a definition, no matter how far fetched or absurd must be real and you're in denial and lying if you don't believe it too.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Your entitled to your opinions.

So nice to read this before I leave the city.

I don’t think so.

I know you don't but no doubt you would change your view if you took the time to look into the matter. It's so obvious there is no room for any other conclusion. You can't expect to learn if you only use scripture and I guess you already know such and perhaps realise investigating outside scripture can only expose you to a truth that you simply do not want to know about. That position calls for the ostrich metaphor...you have your head in the sand, stuck there it seems, so you are unable to look at human history and how superstition become religion...it's your loss.

There’s only one.

No there are thousands that is a fact. Look it up.

But it does define it nevertheless.

You left out...but defining something does not make it real.

And you’re in denial.

Another unsupported claim Jan evidencing you really have no counter argument that you are confident to present.

You’re not into science as much as you seem to think.

Perhaps, however you have little chance of knowing what I think... moreover you did not address my statement ...do you disagree science has the qualities that I outlined?

You can’t event observe a definition,

Sorry I caught you so off your game.

No it doesn’t!

Of course it does, it's just that you clearly don't even know about the facts that support my contention.

Why lie?

Why say something like that? To do so takes something away from you in my view.

Thanks for the chat.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I know you don't but no doubt you would change your view if you took the time to look into the matter.

There is no matter to look into.
You made it up.

No there are thousands that is a fact.

No Alex, there is one.
You have to watch some atheists when they start throw around the word “fact”. Some atheists do not know what truth is, let alone facts.

You left out...but defining something does not make it real.

You’re proving yourself to be a liar, like Q.
Anyways! Do you think “Truth” is real?
If yes, why?

Perhaps, however you have little chance of knowing what I think...

Regarding the topic, there’s not much for me to know. You’re an atheist, you’re in denial, and you feel no way about lying.

Sorry I caught you so off your game.

I don’t know what you mean by that.
But it is true, you can’t observe a definition.
You’re not into science. You only think it supports your position.

Of course it does, it's just that you clearly don't even know about the facts that support my contention.

To you, facts are ideas that support your position. You think it’s a fact that the universe is beginning less.

Why say something like that? To do so takes something away from you in my view.

You’re view is very dodgy.