Atheists here

[Tnerb]

Crunch cat:Why?

Because. There exists many ways a god can exist. It is the defination of truth. Moreso than a "why"....

Crunchy Catlease provide evidence.

Your statement "why" above shows the lack in your perceptual understaing of a gods existence.


Crunchy Cat:About?

The perceptual understanding and truth of a Gods existance, POSSIBLY?

Crunchy Cat: Who?

You maybe? Have you refuted him?

Crunchy Cat: Yes. Every single one that humans have claimed exists.



Why the hell should I respond to something that has already been presented, and especially- the stupid comments regarding 'every one humans claimed exists.' This is simply nonsence. Let's see how much bs I can make of this post. Possibly I won't make much.

You also have not refuted berkley, and this is one defination of God. Therefore, your agnostical atheisism should perhaps remain a little more skeptical than you would have liked to think.

Maybe?

 

[andbna]

You also have not refuted berkley, and this is one defination of God. Therefore, your agnostical atheisism should perhaps remain a little more skeptical than you would have liked to think.

If you prove god does not exist (which nobody here claims to do) then Burkley is wrong.
Burkley's idea of god existing was to fullfill empiricism. But, he did not prove that empiricism was correct, ie he made a baseless assertion, so already, I have no need to disproove him (and you can't prove or disproove empiricsm do to the nature of epistemology) thus, Berkley offers no evidence of god, even evidence that god existed would not prove Berkley's proposition, though evidence of god not existing would prove him wrong. Unfortunatly, god as Berkley requires it, is simply an omniscient being, and we cannot proove a universal negative for such a being. Which means, that neither stance on Berkley's idea is falsafiable.

Agnosticm realises that, thanks to epistemology, we cannot actualy know anything. Thus, it is foolish to assert anything about the existance of god. (Religions assert that (a) particular
god(s) exists and that others do not.)
An atheist may assert that no god of any kind definatly does not exist, however I have seen nobody on this site do that (actualy, I have never heard anyone claim that), and it would indeed be a groundless beleif.

It is of course possible to neither assert that god exists and to not assert that god does not exist, much as one can not assert that green swans exist, while simultaneously not asserting that green swans absolutly do not exist.

-Andrew

 

[SkinWalker]

Personally, I'd like to see existebrent put together a coherent summary of which of Berkeley's works he feels is a definitive evidence of [insert favorite god].

Instead, what we're left with is a juvenile strawman argument that has no substance followed by a claim that no one has "refuted" it. Complete bollocks of an argument.

When Crunchy Cat asked "who?", he was referring to Berkeley. Not everyone has heard of him. Which is what makes your argument a strawman to begin with since you refuse to summarize Berkeley's position. Until now, that summary has been left to myself and Andrew above.

 

[SnakeLord]

To me, this post is a prime example of a person who is unwilling to discuss intellectually!

The original post and indeed your later statement certainly show your above quote fits a certain someone quite well.

You think the most intelligent way to start a thread is "god must exist.."?

Now, I could go through it in depth like some others have done, but then you admitted to not even reading what they wrote, so I shall save my energy.

 

[Tnerb]

andbna (andrew):

Well said.

Snakelord:

Well said. Except that, you do not understand what position I had, and the intellectual arguement remark is nothing more than your refusing to apply any more to the thread than had already been done... I read what I must. If something is valueable, I will read it. Such as what is done by skinwalker above, wh ich of course, I will get to. Also, what has been presented by andrew is striking- and should be to you also.

Skinwalker:

Complete BS of a post, although the part that is not bs is the part about "existabrent(who never gets any recognition for what he is or has done and been through) putting forth an arguement about Berkley." Why should I not have just said Lebinez, and been done with it? None of the claims aganist god has been refuted, and if they have, I would like to see how God does not exist. This position is perfectly reliable & is by no means a "straw man arguement" - although, on its surface surely it would seem like it.

If the above does not make sence, skinwalker who gave me many infractions, please, simply ... try harder?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

God must exist in at least form.

Why?

Because. There exists many ways a god can exist. It is the defination of truth. Moreso than a "why"....

The answer "because there are many ways god can exist" does not correspond to the question that applies to your claim. Again, why MUST 'God' exist in at least form?

You do not understand religion

Please provide evidence.

Your statement "why" above shows the lack in your perceptual understaing of a gods existence.

I'm sorry but that 'answer' is simply nonsensical. You just stated that I dont understand religion because I asked you why 'God' MUST exist in at least form.

you do not seem to .. care at all!

About?

The perceptual understanding and truth of a Gods existance, POSSIBLY?

You are correct then. I don't care about nonsense. What I do care about are people who make decisions that affect others based on nonsense.

Have you refuted Berkley?

Who?

You maybe? Have you refuted him?

You're answering the wrong question. Who is 'Berkley' (are there more words in his full name)? Why would I refute a person? That doesn't make any sense. What you probably meant to ask is have I refuted Berkeley's assertion of 'God's existence? Sure I have, because like all human claims of 'God' I can guarantee his argument will eventually make some fantastic assertion without supportive evidence. Go ahead and post Berkley's assertion and I'll be happy to show you all its specific flaws.

Have you refuted God?

Yes. Every single one that humans have claimed exists.

Why the hell should I respond to something that has already been presented, and especially- the stupid comments regarding 'every one humans claimed exists.' This is simply nonsence. Let's see how much bs I can make of this post. Possibly I won't make much.

You also have not refuted berkley, and this is one defination of God. Therefore, your agnostical atheisism should perhaps remain a little more skeptical than you would have liked to think.

Maybe?

Why is it nonsense? You haven't even asked for evidence of my claim. Whatever 'secret' I hold apprently applies to the assertions of Berkley or any other human; otherwise, the claim would have never been issued.

Also, don't confuse my assertion for claiming that a generic 'God' (not claimed by humans) does not exist. Myself or any other person would have zero knowledge of such a life form.

 

[John99]

Myself or any other person would have zero knowledge of such a life form.

Dont be so sure.

 

[wesmorris]

God must exist in at least form.

Says who or what? I see no basis for this claim besides ego.

[ I] Do not deny it. [A]thiests deny any of gods existance.

Some do, some just don't believe in it. Atheism (lack of belief in god(s)) is a logical consequence of agnosticism.

You do not understand religion, you do not seem to .. care at all!

Obviously you have no basis for this either. Certainly there are some athiests that do not understand religion, and some that do.

Have you refuted Berkley? No?

Perhaps if you think there's something to refute, you should post (or at least link) what you want refuted.

Then you should probably not profess god does not exist.

I wouldn't dream of doing so. In the same notion, I wouldn't dream of asserting the opposite either. I would assert however, that god is necessarily unknowable by definition - and only unbounded ego or ignorance leads to assertions in either direction on the issue.

Have you refuted God?

What's to refute? I couldn't refute it any more than I could prove it. That's what makes the idea so nifty, and the source of such unbelievably extensive debate.

No? Well you should probably not be refuting him.

Who exactly is this "him" you speak of, eh?

 

[SnakeLord]

and the intellectual arguement remark is nothing more than your refusing to apply any more to the thread than had already been done

Perhaps. It must be said however that I feel an unavoidable urge to point out when someone makes a daft statement such as [pp] "all your posts are BS... but I haven't read them". Can't help it, sorry.

If something is valueable, I will read it.

Sorry, can't help it..

How do you know whether it's valuable or not.... without reading it?

Such as what is done by skinwalker above

Therein is the point. After reading this post of Skinwalkers that I assume you considered 'valuable', (which is why you read it), you then instantly go on to say [pp] "Skinwalker, your post is bullshit". You've got me royally confused.

As to the original post, what exactly can be said that would be sufficient for you? You start with "a god must exist".. the only answer you'll ever really get is "why?" because there's nothing else you can really say to such a statement. You then go on to assert that because you can't prove a god doesn't exist, you should believe in it. Simply put, this is complete and utter codswallop and even you must recognise that.

There's little else that can be said.

 

[spidergoat]

Who ya gonna call?

 

[audible]

mythbusters.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Dont be so sure.

If a person discovered some generic sentient omnipotent life form, I am certain they would break out the video recorder.

 

[Tnerb]

Crunchy cat and others:
Reading this post, may clarify myself a little. I should re-do it, as I have discovered while typing it some of the thoughts I have lost. Possibly it will be a good post, as I said I should probably re-do it.

The answer "because there are many ways god can exist" does not correspond to the question that applies to your claim. Again, why MUST 'God' exist in at least form?

Thanks CC. This discussion has been of a great value to me. I am searching for answers as we all are. I would not say, that my beliefs are based off of nonsence, even if they were true. Anyway, to get to your question... Oh. But before that. I do hope that you guys can come to an understanding of me in this thread. That would be excellent. Reason?: I get a lot of criticism, as, I am still in the progress of reconfiguring my life. You see what I mean, maybe? It's hard work, and a lot of work. Anyway, back to your question.

God must exist at least in form in theory. This theory has been presented several pages back.

Lebinez says so, and the understanding I have says that he "must exist at least in form". Kant, for example. Says, that god must exist according to ethics. Who can say what happens when we die? Perhaps pantheisism Is a correct belief? Do you see what I am saying? Who has refuted God? Evidence of god? The evidence is everywhere. It exists within you, possibly.

Do I make myself clear?

I'm sorry but that 'answer' is simply nonsensical. You just stated that I dont understand religion because I asked you why 'God' MUST exist in at least form.

Precisely. You don't understand what I said ^^^^ (above) Cool man?
I could go further as skinwalker might suggest, but refuse. You guys can ... don't want to get modded. ----- just wait for that.

You are correct then. I don't care about nonsense. What I do care about are people who make decisions that affect others based on nonsense.

I am glad you said that. It will give me something to meditate on. While I am doing such, you can present further 'evidence' to this claim. I will be happy to eat it.

You're answering the wrong question. Who is 'Berkley' (are there more words in his full name)? Why would I refute a person? That doesn't make any sense. What you probably meant to ask is have I refuted Berkeley's assertion of 'God's existence? Sure I have, because like all human claims of 'God' I can guarantee his argument will eventually make some fantastic assertion without supportive evidence. Go ahead and post Berkley's assertion and I'll be happy to show you all its specific flaws.

LoL! Very snifty, CC!
His name may be John. Or herman. I am joking. I know, for sure, that he is a "Bishiop", or whatnot. At least I think....
Berkley was a philosopher who was sort of like an immaterialist or whatever. He stated matter does not exist except perceived by the mind. I am not sure about this statement, perhaps someone else would like to clarify EVERYTHING about berkleys stance. Regardless, Berkley is a philosopher in the specific sense at the very least. He stated many examples of why God exists, of course, I made the claim in the OP (opening post) meaning that you likely have not refuted berkley, you likely should not be refuting god, you are dumb or something... I don't understnad why you would refute God if you don't even know what god is.

Regardless. Lebinez also would be a great contribution to this arguement. I am sure, for example, were LightGigantic to come here he and I would at least have some agreement. You do know, there are intellectual theists, they do have profound arguements (such as the one that I am presenting perhaps?), and they do have evidence in words to back up their claims....

Why is it nonsense? You haven't even asked for evidence of my claim. Whatever 'secret' I hold apprently applies to the assertions of Berkley or any other human; otherwise, the claim would have never been issued.

Also, don't confuse my assertion for claiming that a generic 'God' (not claimed by humans) does not exist. Myself or any other person would have zero knowledge of such a life form.

Sure. I'm proud to try and be nice, it's what we humans do.

It's "nonsence" quote, because "every god humans said to exist" is saying you have refuted "God." I don't need evidence saying this is how I have retuted every god. I don't care about your claims. I care about mine and how they mesh with yours.

We can have knowledge of such a life form. This zero knowledge you speak, perhaps can contain some knowledge. I could, of course, as usual, be entirely wrong. If I am be entirely mean to me. It's what helps. Authority that is asserting it's actual and honest authority. Any General Grevious would be happy to relax.

Why, shit, don't we jump the gun and say as in another of the useless of all the threads, "Define God"?

We might say: God does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as God.

Or we might say: God exists because god is the defination of the unknown, or rather, God is the defination of the un-self.

These of course are just statements saying things, and I do believe I can eventually come to some sort of conclusion regarding the defination of God. Do we not all wish to come to a defination of God?

This thread obviously, is for the talking about this very issue.
If I have not, of course, presented myself very well, then perhaps you should examine further.
I like sci-forums. And I like philosophy. But I am not going to be told things to me that are simply un-true. None of you have seen the real, "existabrent" yet- Perhaps, one day you will. Until then guys, have good discussion of God, and make sure that it is worthwhile eh?

;-)

ps. I wish Sartre would post. Then again, he is dead

 

[spidergoat]

There is no such thing as a Sartre, it's a myth.

 

[halo07guy]

Ah but there is I think at least a little evidence leaning towards all religions: what happens to the mind and the consius(sp) after death?

 

[ashura]

Ah but there is I think at least a little evidence leaning towards all religions: what happens to the mind and the consius(sp) after death?

How is that evidence towards religions?

The fact is we don't know what happens to the mind and consciousness after death. And the only thing you can infer from that is: we don't know what happens to the mind and consciousness after death.

 

[scorpius]

Ah but there is I think at least a little evidence leaning towards all religions: what happens to the mind and the consius(sp) after death?

I think we can be pretty sure your consiousness wont exist when your body and brain dies.
some people think consiousness is a soul,some thought breath was soul,
its not
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

imo if people had souls,shouldnt they be able to comunicate with the dead peoples souls/spirits?

 

[Tnerb]

SnakeLord:

just so you know, I have deep respect for you.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Thanks CC. This discussion has been of a great value to me. I am searching for answers as we all are.

To what questions?

God must exist at least in form in theory. This theory has been presented several pages back.

Lebinez says so, and the understanding I have says that he "must exist at least in form". Kant, for example. Says, that god must exist according to ethics. Who can say what happens when we die? Perhaps pantheisism Is a correct belief? Do you see what I am saying? Who has refuted God? Evidence of god? The evidence is everywhere. It exists within you, possibly.

Do I make myself clear?

Quite. In summary 'God' must exist because you want it to be true and people you hold as 'authority' figures say its true.

Precisely. You don't understand what I said ^^^^ (above) Cool man?
I could go further as skinwalker might suggest, but refuse. You guys can ... don't want to get modded. ----- just wait for that.

It sounds like you have a great opportunity for improving your communication ability then.

I am glad you said that. It will give me something to meditate on. While I am doing such, you can present further 'evidence' to this claim. I will be happy to eat it.

Which one? I made two claims in that text snippet you referred to.

LoL! Very snifty, CC!
His name may be John. Or herman. I am joking. I know, for sure, that he is a "Bishiop", or whatnot. At least I think....
Berkley was a philosopher who was sort of like an immaterialist or whatever. He stated matter does not exist except perceived by the mind. I am not sure about this statement, perhaps someone else would like to clarify EVERYTHING about berkleys stance. Regardless, Berkley is a philosopher in the specific sense at the very least. He stated many examples of why God exists, of course, I made the claim in the OP (opening post) meaning that you likely have not refuted berkley, you likely should not be refuting god, you are dumb or something... I don't understnad why you would refute God if you don't even know what god is.

His name was George Berkley. His made the assertion that reality only exists when observed. Seeing as if you turned your head there would be a catastrophe in the existence of what you were just looking at, he proposed that a life form ('God') observes everything at all times.

The glaring flaw is that there is no evidence that Berkley's initial assertion is true (in fact there is contradictory evidence if you consider the universe has been around far longer than people have). So that's it, he stands refuted.

Regardless. Lebinez also would be a great contribution to this arguement. I am sure, for example, were LightGigantic to come here he and I would at least have some agreement. You do know, there are intellectual theists, they do have profound arguements (such as the one that I am presenting perhaps?), and they do have evidence in words to back up their claims....

None of them have evidence to back up their claims. Take LG for example, he claims that acquiring certain knowledge results in the generation of additional biological organs responsible for direct perception of 'God'. It should be simple for LG to show these biological changes in humans as a result of acquiring knowledge... but alas he can't. Know why? Because he is delusional.

I don't care about your claims. I care about mine and how they mesh with yours.

If you value truth, and I don't think you do, then you would care much more about how your claims mesh with reality.

We can have knowledge of such a life form. This zero knowledge you speak, perhaps can contain some knowledge. I could, of course, as usual, be entirely wrong. If I am be entirely mean to me. It's what helps. Authority that is asserting it's actual and honest authority. Any General Grevious would be happy to relax.

ooooooooook.

Why, shit, don't we jump the gun and say as in another of the useless of all the threads, "Define God"?

Definition of 'God': Anthropmorophization of reality.

There you go.

We might say: God does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as God.

Or we might say: God exists because god is the defination of the unknown, or rather, God is the defination of the un-self.

For something to exist, the mental representation must match to a corresponding object in reality.

 

[SkinWalker]

Complete BS of a post,

I suspect it is "BS" to you because you don't like being called out. That must be true since you didn't bother explaining to us what, specifically, defines my post as "BS." I made several very salient points, namely that you are suggesting that "no one has refuted Berkely" as if the mere name of a mediocre philosopher is enough to offer evidence for a god.

I opened an opportunity for you to refine your argument from that of a strawman (an argument you expect your opposition to spend time on rather than deal with the delusion of religion head on) to an argument that is cohesive and to-the-point. You choose, instead, to take the low road and be satisfied with name-dropping and the juvenile "you're wrong because I'm right" argument.

None of the claims aganist god has been refuted, and if they have, I would like to see how God does not exist. This position is perfectly reliable & is by no means a "straw man arguement" - although, on its surface surely it would seem like it.

On the surface and from all other angles as well. Unless you flesh out your position that Berkeley has defined god in such a way that sends all reasoned mind packing for the nearest sheep pen of a church. Berkeley made many claims about god. Which, specifically, are you implying have gone un-refuted? Let us put your claim in the open and I'll cite you the proper refutation, for each of Berkeley's delusions, thought-experiments, and attempts at philosophical discourse have long been laid to rest with regard to the delusion that there is evidence of a god at work in the universe.

If the above does not make sence, skinwalker who gave me many infractions, please, simply ... try harder?

Why should I put any effort in making you look any worse than you're already doing to yourself. I almost feel ashamed.