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

[James R]

What do you think “belief” is?
Do you think you can believe in anything without having some knowledge or understanding of that thing?

Clearly, people can believe things that aren't factually true.

This shows that there doesn't have to be an actual "thing" that can be understood before somebody can believe in it. A fantasy or a lie can be sufficient foundation for a belief.

 

[James R]

You think a person can just believe something, or believe in something because they want to.

I don't think that. I think that people become convinced of things. Something - or some things, or someone - convinces them that a claim is true or that some state of affairs exists.

Sure, people can be more or less predisposed to becoming convinced that certain things are true (or false). There are a whole lot of factors that can bias us towards one belief or another. But "wanting to believe" is only part of the larger matrix of factors that lead to somebody becoming convinced of something. And "wanting to believe" doesn't always factor into becoming convinced.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think people frequently just choose the path of least resistance, not enough moral strength to buck the popular tide. Lazy, just lazy.

 

[billvon]

You don't see the problem there?

Nope. If it makes you happy and a more functional member of society - believe whatever you want.

 

[Trek]

If you do not have the positive belief that something (X) exists then, by definition, you lack that positive belief that X exists. Where X is God, this is sufficient for some to use the label "atheist".

Ok. What does it mean to have “positive belief” in God, as opposed to a basic belief in God?

You have basically said that if one does not belief that God exists, it is sufficient to use the label “atheist”.
Correct because one cannot believe in a thing, concept, or ideaology if they are unknown to them. In the same breath said person cannot argue for or against something that is unknown to them. Unless of course they are fools.

Some might require one to have at least thought about X, even if only to conclude that they are not otherwise aware of it, or find a definition meaningless etc. This is to distinguish, for example, someone who has concluded that they lack belief in X, from someone who has yet to give it any thought.

Just because one does not give God any thought does not mean that person has no knowledge or understanding of God.

Concluding that one is atheist or theist does not make one an atheist or theist. The designation is already there whether you decide or not. One can however decide to move away from the designation over time. It’s not different to getting over breaking up with someone you love, and having to move on. Or when someone close to you dies. Eventually you will get over it and move on.

So, no, you don't necessarily need a known and understood definition to lack belief that the thing exists. You don't know what a Gliptz is, so you can not say that you have a positive belief that a Gliptz exists, can you. True, you also can not say that a Glipitz does not exist. But an atheist, at least as commonly understood here, only requires the former, not the latter.

This is why we don’t start threads, or have debates about Gliptz. We have no idea of what one is so believing or not in the Gliptz, or believing or not that it exists is never expressed.
OTOH God has been expressed throughout history right up to the present. Because we have some knowledge and understanding of God. We couldn’t be atheist, agnostic, or theist, if we didn’t.

What is it about God that makes one an atheist?

If one does not accept evidences for God (google evidence for God), what reasons can you give for this non acceptance?

Agnosticism is a different position, about what is known, or the knowability, of the subject matter.

What is it about the subject matter that make an agnostic believe that God as ultimate reality cannot be known?
What do they know about God (in the first place) to make that decision?

If you don't have a meaningful definition of something then that in itself is sufficient for some to consider themselves necessarily agnostic on the matter.

What do you mean by (meaningful definition)?
Does an agnostic have any idea at all about God, or even the claims made about God?

They couldn't go so far as to say that Glipitz are an unknowable phenomenon precisely because they, personally, don't know what is meant by the term.

Are you saying an agnostic does not know what is meant by the term “God”?

But in so far as they deem themselves to lack any knowledge of Glipitz, even as far as a meaningful definition, is surely sufficient to say "I don't know...".

But they don’t leave it there.
They will still argue about God.
If one has no idea of something, what are they arguing about?

Sure, but until you decide that they do exist, you necessarily lack belief that they do, right?

I would neither believe or lack a belief.
How could I?
What would it be based on?

To me "God" is a meaningless concept, akin to asking what happened before time began.

Why is it?

I therefore lack belief that God exists - i.e. an atheist (as I have at least considered the position) - and I also can not say what evidence would convince me.

So what is God to you, as opposed to what is NOT God.
I think the whole Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign has been meaningless, but they and it exists. I can give reasons as to why I come to that conclusion and even bring up points to back my conclusion. But it seems to me that folks here want to denigrate God and theists without offering up explanations. This thread is a prime example of that, as are all the threads relating to God. Why is that?

Maybe God exists, maybe God doesn't exist. I don't know, precisely because I find God to be a meaningless concept. I am therefore agnostic. I also consider God to be unknowable, precisely because I think it a meaningless concept.

So why do you engage in discussions about God?
Do you ever engage in discussions about Gliptz?

 

[Trek]

Which you could not provide

Obviously I can’t provide proof.
You can’t provide proof of anything you claim either. Nobody can.
Hence the silliness of the thread.

It was I that asked you for evidence instead, you failed there too.

This is why I call you a liar.
I gave evidence earlier in the google link.
Now explain why you reject that as evidence, and stop wasting time

 

[Trek]

Do you need me to define "fail?"

No I want you to define God, then explain why you don’t accept the evidence I provided

 

[Trek]

Many people do, yes.

How is it possible to do that?
I’m assuming you know what it is to believe something.

 

[Trek]

So, there's some evidence that points towards the slim possibility that there is a God, but it strikes me as very weak.

Is weak evidence, still evidence?

There's also a lot of alleged evidence that some believers like to refer to. But such evidence tends not to point persuasively towards the conclusion that there must be a God behind it.

So evidence is only what you personally decide it is then. Noted for future discussion

I'm at a loss. I honestly don't know what you mean when you talk about a "standard of evidence". Give me some examples of what you mean. You haven't explained.

I can’t remember the context.
Find the thread and I’ll try and explain it to you

Forget God for a moment, if you like. What possible "standards of evidence" are there that would be suitable to conclude that, say, unicorns are real, or that the Pacific Ocean is real?

No I’m not going to forget God even for a moment. God is the subject matter so let’s focus on that

I take it that the content of my post #587 above is too challenging for you.

I asked you some questions that you either can't answer or that you don't want to face.

Sorry mate. Your posts are numerous, on top of other posts. I cannot keep up with the volume.
From now on I will only respond to posts that are relevant to my line of questioning

 

[Trek]

Clearly, people can believe things that aren't factually true.

Never said they couldn’t.

This shows that there doesn't have to be an actual "thing" that can be understood before somebody can believe in it. A fantasy or a lie can be sufficient foundation for a belief.

Some form of understanding has to be be present in order to believe. Otherwise it’s not a belief.
Do you think belief is purely abstract?

I don't think that.

Good

I think that people become convinced of things.

How do they become convinced if not through understanding (even if they are mistaken)?

Something - or some things, or someone - convinces them that a claim is true or that some state of affairs exists.

Still begs the above question..

Sure, people can be more or less predisposed to becoming convinced that certain things are true (or false).

Above question still applies

There are a whole lot of factors that can bias us towards one belief or another. But "wanting to believe" is only part of the larger matrix of factors that lead to somebody becoming convinced of something. And "wanting to believe" doesn't always factor into becoming convinced.

I agree that we can find ourselves in the position of “wanting to believe”, but that only strengthens my point. We can’t just believe something because we want to, there has to be good reason to convince us. Belief is not abstract, it impacts our lives.

 

[Pinball1970]

So it doesn't really bother me what people believe, as long as it is 1) good for them and 2) isn't causing them to do anything bad.

My comment was a response to Trek suggesting the thread is silly merely because we are asking for some evidence. Something man has been doing for 1000s of years.
"We don't have any." Is a totally reasonable AND honest answer.

We do not get that a lot however.

 

[James R]

Trek:

I notice that you only selectively replied to my post #587, above. It seems like you dodged all the hard questions - the ones that would require you to make an effort.

This kind of behaviour, too, is very reminiscent of another angry man who rage-quit this forum. Are you sure you don't know Jan Ardena?

Is weak evidence, still evidence?

Weak evidence of a possibility is what it is: weak evidence of a possibility.

But you think you've confirmed the reality of your God beyond reasonable doubt, don't you?

You didn't use evidence for that, I take it.

So evidence is only what you personally decide it is then.

I don't know how you reached that conclusion.

I can’t remember the context.
Find the thread and I’ll try and explain it to you

You're reading the thread. Not hard to find.

Look, it doesn't matter. Clearly, you didn't know what you meant when you went off about "standards of evidence". Probably it was just a throw-away comment on your part. Since you've already forgotten about it, I'm happy to forget about it too. I guess you weren't really making any point with it.

No I’m not going to forget God even for a moment. God is the subject matter so let’s focus on that

Why did you dodge my question, there? Your attempts at deflection are quite transparent to me, you know.

Anyway, since this is still about something you obviously didn't think through when you posted it, we can move on.

Sorry mate. Your posts are numerous, on top of other posts. I cannot keep up with the volume.
From now on I will only respond to posts that are relevant to my line of questioning

Is this going to be your ongoing excuse for dodging all the hard questions?

 

[Trek]

I notice that you only selectively replied to my post #587, above. It seems like you dodged all the hard questions - the ones that would require you to make an effort

James your questions aren’t hard. Period.
You’re not the only person I am conversing with, plus you are posting stuff and I am not aware of it.
Perhaps if you limit your posts to what is relevant and necessary we could have a better dialogue.

This kind of behaviour, too, is very reminiscent of another angry man who rage-quit this forum. Are you sure you don't know Jan Ardena?

Behaviour?
Again with Jan Ardena…
What are you implying by always relating me to him?

Weak evidence of a possibility is what it is: weak evidence of a possibility.

?

But you think you've confirmed the reality of your God beyond reasonable doubt, don't you?

It’s not about me James..
It is you and other atheists on here who are being asked about evidence that would make you believe God is a reality. And what is it about God that makes you think there is no evidence.

You didn't use evidence for that, I take it.

??

 

[James R]

Never said they couldn’t.

Good. Since we are in agreement about that, you will also agree that it is possible to believe in a God that isn't real. Right?

Some form of understanding has to be be present in order to believe. Otherwise it’s not a belief.

A belief is a conviction that a claim is true or that a state of affairs exists.

I think I can agree that "some form of understanding" of the particulars of the claim or the state of affairs that is the subject of the belief is necessary to hold a belief about the claim or state of affairs.

"Some form of understanding" is very non-specific, however. What are you trying to get at, exactly? Got any examples?

Do you think belief is purely abstract?

I don't know. What does "purely abstract" mean?

Perhaps you can give me an example of something that is purely abstract, something that is abstract but not purely abstract, and something that is not abstract?

Do you think that belief is purely abstract? And why does it matter whether it is purely abstract or not?

How do they become convinced if not through understanding (even if they are mistaken)?

All sorts of reasons. Perhaps a friend told them and they trust their friend. Perhaps the belief "feels right" to them. Perhaps the belief fits neatly into a web of their preconceptions, filling a belief-sized hole in their heart.

People believe all kinds of things they don't understand.

I agree that we can find ourselves in the position of “wanting to believe”, but that only strengthens my point.

Remind me what your point was, again?

We can’t just believe something because we want to, there has to be good reason to convince us.

Not necessarily good reason. We can become convinced of lots of things for lots of very poor reasons. In fact, when the "want to believe" factor is in play, we're more in danger of becoming convinced by poor reasons - or of becoming convincing in the absence of any reason (e.g. purely due to emotion).

Belief is not abstract, it impacts our lives.

That answers my question above. You don't think belief is "purely abstract". You don't think it's "abstract" at all, apparently. What do you mean by "abstract"? Do you just mean "irrelevant to our lives"?

I think I can answer your question then, using your terminology. I agree with you that belief is not "purely abstract", because I agree with your that beliefs impact our lives.

---
We seem to have drifted quite a long way off topic. Shall we make our way back to the thread topic?

We were talking about evidence for God, if I recall correctly. I commented on your top three. How do you respond?

 

[James R]

James your questions aren’t hard. Period.

I think they are hard for you, despite your protestations.

You’re not the only person I am conversing with, plus you are posting stuff and I am not aware of it.

Either you're willing to follow a thread or you aren't. Do you have problems concentrating?

Perhaps if you limit your posts to what is relevant and necessary we could have a better dialogue.

Perhaps if you limit your posts to what is relevant, we can have a better dialogue. I mean, why waste your time posting about "standards of evidence" if you're only going to forget you even raised them as a matter of concern within a page or two of raising the issue?

Behaviour?

Selectively ignoring that which you find uncomfortable. Avoiding giving honest and open answers to straightforward questions. That kind of thing. Behaviour.

Again with Jan Ardena…
What are you implying by always relating me to him?

I think I've been clear. Your worldview (what I know of it), your style of posting, the kinds of arguments you make and your defensiveness are all strikingly similar to what we saw from Jan on this forum. It's quite a startling level of similarity, which is what I find remarkable. Maybe you have a long lost brother or a soul mate. I reckon if you two blokes got together, the two of you would really hit it off. It's like you're on the same wavelength.

It’s not about me James..

You're not a believer who is posting in this thread to prove that his God isn't just fiction?

Okay. If you say so.

Why are you posting in this thread, then?

It is you and other atheists on here who are being asked about evidence that would make you believe God is a reality. And what is it about God that makes you think there is no evidence.

That's not at all what the topic of this thread is, Trek. Perhaps you should start a new thread on your preferred topic.

 

[Trek]

Good. Since we are in agreement about that, you will also agree that it is possible to believe in a God that isn't real. Right?

There is only one God (by definition).
But I agree it is possible to believe in things that aren’t real, like Piltdown Man. Do you agree?

A belief is a conviction that a claim is true or that a state of affairs exists.

Nothing more?

I think I can agree that "some form of understanding" of the particulars of the claim or the state of affairs that is the subject of the belief is necessary to hold a belief about the claim or state of affairs.

I’ll accept that.
Now tell your peers

"Some form of understanding" is very non-specific, however. What are you trying to get at, exactly? Got any examples?

I’m prepared to leave it at the above understanding. No need to complicate things further

Not necessarily good reason. We can become convinced of lots of things for lots of very poor reasons.

Good reason/bad reason, only becomes prominent with hindsight, or third party opinions.
Plus what is a bad reason for one, is good for another.
But to the believer, at that moment, it is a good reason. That

I don't know. What does "purely abstract" mean?

Noted. I will change that to “abstract”.

Perhaps you can give me an example of something that is purely abstract, something that is abstract but not purely abstract, and something that is not abstract?

Ideas are abstract.
Do you agree?

Do you think that belief is purely abstract? And why does it matter whether it is purely abstract or not?

No. Belief is what guides our actions for the best part. Beliefs are the basis of human societies.

All sorts of reasons. Perhaps a friend told them and they trust their friend.

Why do they trust their friend?
Do you think trust is something we also do without reason?

Perhaps the belief "feels right" to them.

The “belief feels right”?
That’s not a thing. Is it?

Perhaps the belief fits neatly into a web of their preconceptions, filling a belief-sized hole in their heart.

People believe all kinds of things they don't understand.

Like what?

 

[Trek]

I think they are hard for you, despite your protestations.

Whatever!

Either you're willing to follow a thread or you aren't. Do you have problems concentrating?

I'm pushed for time James.
I try to chat when I can.
Like now

Selectively ignoring that which you find uncomfortable. Avoiding giving honest and open answers to straightforward questions. That kind of thing. Behaviour.

I think the same way about Y’all
I asked simple questions to better clarify your positions, and not one of you has answered.

I reckon if you two blokes got together, the two of you would really hit it off. It's like you're on the same wavelength.

You may be correct.
Some of the stuff he writes regarding God, makes a lot of sense. But obviously you haven’t talked with a lot of Christians who pushes for theism towards discussions with atheists.
I think that is a better approach to talking about God, than triggering atheists with the bible.
Y’all start accusing of preaching, evangelising, and other stuff. But I will quote Jesus if it is relevant.

You're not a believer who is posting in this thread to prove that his God isn't just fiction?

I have responded.
There’s not much to respond to.
I’ve also put forward evidence for God.
Now I want some answers

That's not at all what the topic of this thread is, Trek. Perhaps you should start a new thread on your preferred topic.

The actual topic, once responded to, begs the question. As a theist I want to know what is being talked about.
Just because the word ‘God’ is thrown around doesn’t mean we are talking about God.
I want to know what you guys mean by God.
But if the questions are too hard to answer, as it definitely appears to be, then I get it.
You’re just guys beating off to your own God derangement syndrome.

 

[foghorn]

I think I've been clear. Your worldview (what I know of it), your style of posting, the kinds of arguments you make and your defensiveness are all strikingly similar to what we saw from Jan on this forum. It's quite a startling level of similarity, which is what I find remarkable. Maybe you have a long lost brother or a soul mate. I reckon if you two blokes got together, the two of you would really hit it off. It's like you're on the same wavelength.

And don't forget the spelling and avatars...
Two ii’s in “ no brainier” for Trek and Jan Ardena. My bold below.

It’s a no brainier for me,

For me it was a no-brainier when he stated…

It’s a no brainier.He’s an…

And both having avatar pictures produced by sound vibrations:

 

[Trek]

And don't forget the spelling and avatars...
Two ii’s in “ no brainier” for Trek and Jan Ardena. My bold below.






And both having avatar pictures produced by sound vibrations:
View attachment 6242

So are you saying I am Jan Ardena?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nope. If it makes you happy and a more functional member of society - believe whatever you want.

But what about the lies that make people LESS functional. KKK propaganda. Trump saying just about anything. Things like that?