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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree.

Jesus said... those who kill with the sword die by the sword. The Christian kings/queens etc. throughout the middle ages practiced the opposite of what Jesus taught.

Any Christian killing non believers(where is this happening?) isn't practicing Christianity.

So who do you blame?

Humans.

 

[DaveC426913]

In philosophy sometimes you need to assume unknown conditions to make progress in a fruitful dialog.

As I said, that would be fine.

But "God exists, whether you deny him to or not, you lying heathens!" is NOT philosophy. And that's what y'all have been doing.

 

[davewhite04]

Humans.

If you knew the Christian God existed, would you still blame humans?

 

[davewhite04]

As I said, that would be fine.

But "God exists, whether you deny him to or not, you lying heathens!" is NOT philosophy. And that's what y'all have been doing.

Maybe some atheists need to critque their own attitudes before blaming others. I do agree that some theists get stuck at the first fence in discussion, but so do atheists.

It's a handbag fight, with both parties to blame and the discussion going nowhere just a game of "You're stupid".

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe some atheists need to critque their own attitudes before blaming others. I do agree that some theists get stuck at the first fence in discussion, but so do atheists.

It's a handbag fight, with both parties to blame and the discussion going nowhere just a game of "You're stupid".

Some, a bit more aggressively than others.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you knew the Christian God existed, would you still blame humans?

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass so much.

Nonsense ball back in your court.

 

[davewhite04]

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass so much.

Nonsense ball back in your court.

Tried to discuss something and this is the answer.

Do you see Dave?

 

[Trek]

Then correct me.

You can’t correct a world view, because a worldview is not purely an intellectual pursuit.
Your worldview is aligned with your deep core personality with an accumulation of experience From moment to moment over years.

You pretend you want evidence of God all the while knowing that for you, currently there is no God.
You have to come out of that worldview, nobody can convince you to.
Yet you ask to be convinced, not that you want to know about God. But to feel justified in your denial. If you wasn’t in denial, you wouldn’t ask anyone to prove God to you.

Ask any theist if he or she believed in God because somebody convinced them to. They may say they were inspired by someone or something. But they always come to the realisation by themselves. Because it is entirely personal.

But you can't, can you? You've admitted you can't.

It’s not my job to correct you. I’m busy dealing with my own situation. But I’ll give you some advice.
Be honest with yourself, because that’s the basic standard of being truthful. You can refer to God as God. You can be respectful to the idea of God. And it doesn’t mean you believe in God, but you will get some understanding from the person you chatting to.
It may not happen overnight for you, but a little respect can opens things.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can’t correct a world view, because a worldview is not purely an intellectual pursuit.

So no then.
For a second time, you cannot produce any evidence that god exists outside your head.

You pretend you want evidence of God all the while knowing that for you, currently there is no God.

Just like you do with unicorns. That's how rational thinking works. We don't accept that 1+1=3 until and unless someone can show us evidence of it.

You are leading us all directly to the conclusion that belief in God requires irrational thinking.

If you wasn’t in denial, you wouldn’t ask anyone to prove God to you.

It is you who assert that God is real, yet you cannot demonstrate it.

How do you know you are not simply hallucinating? You don't need to answer that; you will have your reasons for being sure, but the nature of rationality requires external reasons for accepting something exists; it is not sufficient to see something in your head and decide that it is objectively true.

Be honest with yourself, because that’s the basic standard of being truthful.

You are one of the most dishonest members on this forum. You've gaslit us with "that's your atheism talking" and "you are in denial" countless times. Unlike your empty claims that I am lying, I can quote the innumerable times you have attempted to gaslight members in this thread.

You're gaslighting again, here, suggesting I am not being honest with myself. This hurts your credibility - it says nothing about me, but it speaks to your tactics that you must gaslight to keep treading water in a discussion you've lost confidence in.

Instead of asking me to trust you that god exists, why don't you hit me with something irrefutable?

You can refer to God as God. You can be respectful to the idea of God. And it doesn’t mean you believe in God, but you will get some understanding from the person you chatting to.
It may not happen overnight for you, but a little respect can opens things.

I have been respectful. At no time have I cast aspersions upon god.

My objection is not to god as a concept, my objection has always been to your odious gaslighting that he is objectively real.

You have called me a liar several times, amongst other epithets. You - of all people - have no business demanding respect from anyone here.

 

[gmilam]

It’s not my job to correct you. I’m busy dealing with my own situation.

Yet you still take time out of your busy schedule to post in an obviously antagonistic thread only to tell us that you don't have anything... It appears to me that you are still "arguing for sport" - aka, being a troll.

 

[billvon]

If you philosophise over a religious idea you might not agree with but it is worth exploring you have to assume a God(s) exists to learn anything sometimes. If you just leave one line offensive slaps and juvenile comments you will learn nothing.

Well, no. You have to be able to examine the philosophy of the other side; you don't have to believe it.

I sometimes argue with flat Earthers. To do so effectively I do not have to assume the Earth is flat. I just have to understand why they have come to that misunderstanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

It appears to me that you are still "arguing for sport" - aka, being a troll.

At least he's conceded:

Show us any reason to conclude your god exists anywhere but in your head.
You still can't do that, can you?

You’re right atheist.. I can’t
Never said I could, neither have I attempted to.

 

[davewhite04]

Well, no. You have to be able to examine the philosophy of the other side; you don't have to believe it.

I sometimes argue with flat Earthers. To do so effectively I do not have to assume the Earth is flat. I just have to understand why they have come to that misunderstanding.

I bet you get fruitful results.

 

[Trek]

So no then.
For a second time, you cannot produce any evidence that god exists outside your head

For the second time…
Your atheism is kicking in again.
if I don’t give you satisfactory evidence does it mean God is not real?
If it does mean that God is not real then I am correct in saying that as far as you’re concerned… there is no God and as such you are being dishonest when asking for evidence.

If however if it doesn’t mean God is not real then you’re asking the wrong questions, and I recommend you check out former, explicit, card carrying atheists giving their testimonies.
It’s a good place to start because they are coming from the same place as you all

Just like you do with unicorns.

I pretend I want evidence of unicorns?

That's how rational thinking works. We don't accept that 1+1=3 until and unless someone can show us evidence of it.

That requires consciousness.
I’m guessing you believe that consciouness is a product of the brain. Can’t produce any evidence of this outside your head?

You are leading us all directly to the conclusion that belief in God requires irrational thinking.

That’s just your atheist condition kicking in again.

It is you who assert that God is real, yet you cannot demonstrate it.

While I am a theist and believe that God is real…
Where have I asserted “God is real”?

How do you know you are not simply hallucinating?

Hallucinating what?
The word God?
Some concept I made up?
How does one hallucinate God?
I ask these questions to see if you understood you’re question

You don't need to answer that; you will have your reasons for being sure, but the nature of rationality requires external reasons for accepting something exists; it is not sufficient to see something in your head and decide that it is objectively true.

What is the “Nature” of rationality?

Your whole understanding of theism is based on your atheism. Your atheism is a designation by which you lack, or are without a belief in God.
You cannot go outside that designation because it is an atheist concept.
You have to drop that if you truly are wanting to understand God. But you won’t. Will you?

You are one of the most dishonest members on this forum.

That’s a pretty harsh claim.
Is it because I am a theist and am cutting through your bs?

You've gaslit us with "that's your atheism talking" and "you are in denial" countless times.

That’s not gaslighting, it’s a fact.
As long as you are asking for evidence of something you concoct and use that as the God theist believe in. That is just atheist talk.
If you weren’t in denial you or any other atheist would have left the subject of God long ago.
It reminds me of this presidential campaign, how the Democrats are obsessed with Donald Trump.

Unlike your empty claims that I am lying, I can quote the innumerable times you have attempted to gaslight members in this thread.

It’s not empty claims for the reasons I have given numerous times

You're gaslighting again, here, suggesting I am not being honest with myself. This hurts your credibility - it says nothing about me, but it speaks to your tactics that you must gaslight to keep treading water in a discussion you've lost confidence in.

Again you have no come back but to try and pass the ball back to me without attempting a discussion.

Try and discuss respectfully about God. You just might learn something

Instead of asking me to trust you that god exists, why don't you hit me with something irrefutable?

Obviously you didn’t read the post I sent. You just saw certain remarks that got your back up.
Read and discuss properly.

I have been respectful. At no time have I cast aspersions upon god.

You mean you think you haven’t according to your understanding.
The problem is you don’t know whether or not you are casting aspersions on God.
How could you? (Serious question)

As for being respectful…
This whole thread is disrespectful.

My objection is not to god as a concept, my objection has always been to your odious gaslighting that he is objectively real.

You’re lying again.
Give me an example of your accusation if you’re not.

You have called me a liar several times, amongst other epithets. You - of all people - have no business demanding respect from anyone here.

Again I have given good read to label you and others as such. Why don’t you discuss the reasons instead of playing victim?

 

[billvon]

I bet you get fruitful results.

Usually not. But it's good practice.

 

[billvon]

if I don’t give you satisfactory evidence does it mean God is not real?

Nope. It just means you can't prove he's real.

 

[Trek]

Nope. It just means you can't prove he's real

And that’s good enough to justify your atheism is it?

 

[DaveC426913]

I remember this now. This is how Jan argued before. Around and around in circles. Jan could not - would not - even describe what he thought of as God or why we should. He dodged and dodged and dodged, and threw the onus back on his opponents to refute his claim.

And that’s good enough to justify your atheism is it?

Still backwards.

It is not up to any person to justify not believing in something if there's no justification for believing that thing in the first place.

Nobody has to justify why they don't believe in unicorns, until and unless someone makes a compelling argument (such as evidence) that they exist in the first place.
Nobody has to justify why they don't believe a square circle exists, until and unless someone makes a compelling argument (such as evidence) that such a thing exists in the first place.

It is up to the claimant, claiming God exists, to justify why anyone else should believe the claim.

The case has not been made in all this time.

Trek has admitted that he cannot offer any evidence that God exists outside his head.

What is there left to argue over?

 

[Trek]

I remember this now. This is how Jan argued. Around and around in circles. It didn't matter what you said, Jan could not - would not - even describe what he thought of as God. He dodged and dodged and dodged.

Why do you keep assuming that I’m Jan Ardena.

You were the one who described your atheist idea of God.

Still backwards.
It is not up to any person to justify not believing in something.

But they can justify their own atheism.
Remember it’s all circular and internal.

It is up to the claimant, claiming God exists, to justify why anyone else should believe the claim.

Unfortunately you only accept your own concocted version of strawman God as acceptable discussion fodder. And you protect yourself from meaningful discussions. Hence silly threads like this one.

The case has not been made in all this time. Trek has admitted that he cannot offer any evidence that God exists outside his head.

Your atheism is kicking in again.
if I don’t give you satisfactory evidence does it mean God is not real?
If it does mean that God is not real then I am correct in saying that as far as you’re concerned… there is no God and as such you are being dishonest when asking for evidence.

If however if it doesn’t mean God is not real then you’re asking the wrong questions, and I recommend you check out former, explicit, card carrying atheists giving their testimonies.
It’s a good place to start because they are coming from the same place as you all

What is there left to argue over?

You mean you’ve temporarily justified your atheism again until the next time you run low (which appears to be every response to me)

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you keep assuming that I’m Jan Ardena.

I didn't say you were. I simply said you re arguing the same way.

You were the one who described your atheist idea of God.

Did I? I'm curious how I was able to describe something I'm not convinced exists.

Unfortunately you only accept your own concocted version of strawman God

I have no concocted version of God. The whole point is I have no evidence upon which to concoct a version.

Give me some. But you can;t. Because you've admitted there isn't any.

as acceptable discussion fodder.

And again, as you have been asked innumerable times:

give us your concoction of God that we may discuss it. But you won't, will you?

You can't have it both ways. You can't blame me for concocting an incorrect version of god when you don't even have one yourself.

Your atheism is kicking in again.

This hurts your case. But I imagine it helps you feel better.

if I don’t give you satisfactory evidence does it mean God is not real?

It means I, personally, am not satisfied he's objectively real.

I do not speak for you. I would ever tell you god is not real to you. But to be real to you - without being objectively real - would presumably mean he lives in your head.

If it does mean that God is not real then I am correct in saying that as far as you’re concerned… there is no God and as such you are being dishonest when asking for evidence.

This still makes no sense. I think you don't understand it yourself. I suspect it's merely an attempt at meanness.

You don't believe in unicorns, right?
If I told you I believe in unicorns, would you believe they are real because I said so?
Or would you ask me to show you one, so that you can believe too?
What if I then said "But you have your own idea of what a unicorn is. Asking me to show you one when you don't believe in them - that's dishonest. You're lying."

Does that make any sense to you?

If however if it doesn’t mean God is not real then you’re asking the wrong questions,

I'm asking the questions *I* need answers to.

It is irrelevant to me what someone else needs answers to. Once again, your "all atheists are the same" straw man fails you.

and I recommend you check out former, explicit, card carrying atheists giving their testimonies.

Why do I care about somebody else's testimony? Over in the UFO forum, Magical Realist believes in every damn thing some stranger tells him. I'm not him.

It’s a good place to start because they are coming from the same place as you all

Not they're not. Any more than all you God Botherers are the same.

This is how I know you are trolling. You are engaging with your concocted of atheism, not with my arguments, here, now.

Every time you say "you atheists" you are conceding that you can't answer my specific arguments, and you resort to "all you athiests." Every one one of those is a point on my score card, and I have racked up quite a few, thanks.

You mean you’ve temporarily justified your atheism again until the next time you run low (which appears to be every response to me)

And another point for me.

Address my arguments directly, stop dodging them. If you dare.