definition of atheist (comment on 'definition' sticky)

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

So your concept of an imaginable God is... imaginable. Wow. Awesome insight to your thinking, Jan, thanks.
Imaginable means you think god can be imagined / conceptualised, but it is not in itself a concept or an imagining.
Care to have another go at describing this concept of yours?

No thanks,i'm quite alright with ''imaginable''. As it's the concept of God you're giving me (regarding your own position) to work with, I figure we are contextually mutual.

They do indeed. Eventually. But until then, until they reach their own conclusions, they are generally given a concept to work with. That's how it was with everyone I know, and not only with regard God but the tooth fairy, Santa Claus et al.

You forget to add every aspect of their life.

I have not said everybody. That is your mistake. And confidence without support for your confidence is arrogance, which you continue to demonstrate.

Haven't got anything to add so you turn your attention to me?

So first you accuse me of and criticise me for implying God is not necessary merely by dint of considering him unimaginable, and now you question why I consider it necessary for the universe to have an origin if it sprang from something?
If the universe sprang from something, why wouldn't that something be necessary?

Not answering? Again?

Here's the question again. Why is it necessary?

Can you explain why something you have never experienced is unimaginable to you? Even you have previously stated that God is unknowable, so how do you imagine something that you can not know anything about?

How would you know you have never experienced whatever you believe to be unimaginable? Unless of course you are aware of what is 'unimaginable'? You assert that God is unimaginable. My question is; Why is God unimaginable to you?

I never stated that God was unknowable. I said that on top of not believing in God because of lack of evidence (atheist), you also Don the title ''agnostic'' (A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.). Mix that with God IS unimaginable and you've got yours some intellectual armory there.

It needn't be so for everyone, but then the question is how do they know that their imagination is accurate, even remotely so?

That is one way to look at it. Unfortunately it always leads to the same place. Nowhere.
Another question to ask is; How is it they can imagine God, and I can't?

I could imagine God to be the chair on which I sit, and they could imagine god to be anything they want. Who is to say what is the true image?

You are.

But again, you have claimed God is unknowable, yet you somehow seem to think god is imaginable... so what is the purpose of imagining something you can not know anything about it, including whether or not it is a truthful image?

You're the one who decided God is unknowable (without evidence). Agnostic Atheist, remember?

I have not made a choice. I simply do not believe. I can not be made to believe given what I know now and my experiences to date.

So your knowledge and experience leads you to not believe. Firstly, isn't that the criteria for people who do believe? Do you decide how some (if not all) experiences are interpreted? Secondly. Are you somehow lead automatically by your senses?

Is what I said a fact or not?

Yes, but it is irrelevant to the issue in hand.

For you maybe. I can certainly see how it be convenient.
But for me, it's integral. And it's a fact.

Whether they perceive belief as a choice does not mean everyone does, or indeed that it IS a choice. Only that they may perceive it as such. It is, as I initially claimed, nothing but an appeal to authority on your part.

Why would you assume that some people don't have a choice, and some people do?
Even if you decide to blindly follow the guy in front, thereby relieving yourself of a certain amount of responsibility, the choice was yours. What you appear to be implying is that people who believe, do so because they are programmed, or somehow conditioned into believe something you deem non-existent, and unimaginable. That comes from your air tight armory.

From my experience, as it relates to the people I have spoken to, yes. I have not spoken to "innumerable people, past and present" and I can not speak for them. I never tried to and you are being dishonest to think I did. I clearly stated that, from the discussions I have had, the answer (I.e. From those I have discussed it with) is usually "I just do" plus the argument types previously listed.

If you don't know (which you don't), why post it up as if you do know?

I'm patently aware that not everyone sees it like I do. I'm not answering for them, I'm answering for me. If I have told someone they are wrong about how they perceive things of this ilk, point them out to me... as all I have done is point out how you are wrong about me and the way I think. So no more of this drivel, please.

I said you 'generalize', not, 'I think you told someone they are 'wrong'.

And how have I generalised? Point out a valid example, please

Okay...

From the discussions I have had, the answer is generally a fairly stock "I just do [believe]!" and accompanied by an appeal to fear, consequence, emotion or ignorance.

Furthermore, has it ever occurred to you that how you see it may not be how it really is?

How I see what?

Do I see it the way I do because it satisfies me? No. It would be uncomfortable to try to force myself to believe something in which I can't... I can't force myself to believe in the FSM, for example.

So the only way someone believes is because they force themselves to?
Do you equate accepting God with forcing oneself to believe in God?

That would cause me discomfort, I have no doubt. But my lack of belief is no satisfaction at all... it just is what it is. In many ways it causes dissatisfaction that I can not believe, that I can not partake of the surety that others I know, my family included, garner from their beliefs. To think that atheists, or even just me, don't believe out of a sense of satisfaction is rather wide of the mark.

What makes you think that the 'surety' comes from their beliefs? Could the belief come the ''surety''? The ability to accept an idea, emotion without having to believe in it?

They would say I do not. The practical implications of a lack of belief are the same as for those that believe in God's non-existence. I certainly don't do anything that actively promotes his non-existence.

Who really cares about His non-existence?

But this very point of yours suggests a lack of understanding of the difference between lack of belief and belief in the non-existence of God. Throughout our discussions you struggle with the agnostic viewpoint, and you argue as if every atheist is a strong-atheist, actively believing in the non-existence of God.

If you need to see God, in one of His original forms, in order to believe in Him. Then this whole discussion should have ended a while ago. But for most people His existence is not an issue.

Not true. Certainly material evidence would be welcome, but even personal revelation etc would be sufficient, but in truth I can not say, until it happens. "Expect the unexpected!"

IOW you will accept on your terms.

That is what my lack of belief is built upon, yes. I am an agnostic atheist and my atheism (lack of belief) is due to my agnosticism. Some agnostics are theists (my brother is one) but the majority I think are atheists. So you're not telling me anything here I am not already patently aware of.

I'm saying you've built up a wall with the intention of keeping God out.

How is it insulting to explain my view and to use a well-known parody to do so?

Who cares? It's nonsense. If you are sincere in being open-minded about God, then a good place to start is to understand why it is a nonsense.

I don't know what is regarded as evidence for something I can not imagine, thus your argument is flawed.

Right. So waiting for evidence of God to materialize is a futile endeavor. Isn't it? Why do you do it?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

No thanks,i'm quite alright with ''imaginable''. As it's the concept of God you're giving me (regarding your own position) to work with, I figure we are contextually mutual.

As I thought, you have nothing to offer in this regard except empty claims. If you truly wished to show how God is imaginable you would simply provide such an imagining, and something more than "I imagine God as imaginable".

You forget to add every aspect of their life.

How does that alter or add to what I wrote?

Haven't got anything to add so you turn your attention to me?

Only because you drag it that way by making unsupported claims and refusing to answer questions when posed to you.

Not answering? Again?

Here's the question again. Why is it necessary?

Apologies, I thought that you'd be able to follow the logic: if the universe sprang from something, then there must be something for it to spring from. That necessitates the something.
Understand it now?

How would you know you have never experienced whatever you believe to be unimaginable? Unless of course you are aware of what is 'unimaginable'? You assert that God is unimaginable. My question is; Why is God unimaginable to you?

As stated many times before, I do not know God. I have no knowledge of God. I have no experience of God. What more does one not need before one deems it unimaginable?

I never stated that God was unknowable. I said that on top of not believing in God because of lack of evidence (atheist), you also Don the title ''agnostic'' (A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.). Mix that with God IS unimaginable and you've got yours some intellectual armory there.

Thank you for the clarification - however you still have it back to front: I lack belief because I am not aware of any evidence, and because I do not have experience or knowledge of God. Those things make God unimaginable (i.e. it is a conclusion, not a premise). Until I can imagine God, on what basis should I believe, and in what should I believe?

That is one way to look at it. Unfortunately it always leads to the same place. Nowhere.

Nowhere? Nowhere for who? And in reference to what?

Another question to ask is; How is it they can imagine God, and I can't?

You would have to ask them.

You are.

Ah, if only it worked that way. For me it doesn't. I would also know it is only a guess, and not something I could ever believe as being true. I simply could not force myself to believe in its truth.
So round in circles we go.

You're the one who decided God is unknowable (without evidence). Agnostic Atheist, remember?

Unknown, yes. Whether or not he is ultimately unknowable to me... no idea. That is not an assessment I can make as, once again, I lack the knowledge, experience, etc.

So your knowledge and experience leads you to not believe.

More it doesn't lead me to believe.

Firstly, isn't that the criteria for people who do believe?

We have something else to go on?

Do you decide how some (if not all) experiences are interpreted?

Interpreted, yes. But interpretation does not equate to truth.

Secondly. Are you somehow lead automatically by your senses?

You'll have to clarify what you mean before I could answer that.

For you maybe. I can certainly see how it be convenient.
But for me, it's integral. And it's a fact.

Why is it relevant then? What is the point / purpose of it?
And convenience has nothing to do with it.

Why would you assume that some people don't have a choice, and some people do?
Even if you decide to blindly follow the guy in front, thereby relieving yourself of a certain amount of responsibility, the choice was yours. What you appear to be implying is that people who believe, do so because they are programmed, or somehow conditioned into believe something you deem non-existent, and unimaginable. That comes from your air tight armory.

As previously suggested, read up on doxastic involuntarism.

If you don't know (which you don't), why post it up as if you do know?

I don't. That is just your biased interpretation of what was written.

I said you 'generalize', not, 'I think you told someone they are 'wrong'.

And that response was not in relation to your comment of generalising. . But great evasion again.

How I see what?

Anything and everything.

So the only way someone believes is because they force themselves to?

Not in all beliefs, possibly.

Do you equate accepting God with forcing oneself to believe in God?

Given my knowledge and experience, yes. It is the only way I could accept something that I have no knowledge of.

What makes you think that the 'surety' comes from their beliefs? Could the belief come the ''surety''? The ability to accept an idea, emotion without having to believe in it?

Because I have talked to them.

Who really cares about His non-existence?

Strong atheists.

If you need to see God, in one of His original forms, in order to believe in Him. Then this whole discussion should have ended a while ago. But for most people His existence is not an issue.

I don't need to see God. I just can't believe in something for which I have no knowledge, no experience. It is not a choice, I simply can not believe.
And bear in mind that this thread is about atheism - so his existence or not is an issue, in as much as it is how we assess that that informs our position.

IOW you will accept on your terms.

I will accept on any terms that lead me to believe. I make no demands. I simply can not force myself to believe.

I'm saying you've built up a wall with the intention of keeping God out.

You can say what you want, but there is no intention. The wall is built up from the foundations of how my thought processes work. I don't believe in many things, for the same reasons... but would you say that I have built it up with the intention of keeping them out as well? That belief in God can not seem to get through the wall is a by-product of the way my mind works. It results in me simply not being able to believe in God's existence.
If God exists, would he not be capable of breaking through the wall?

Who cares? It's nonsense. If you are sincere in being open-minded about God, then a good place to start is to understand why it is a nonsense.

And once again you evade.

Right. So waiting for evidence of God to materialize is a futile endeavor. Isn't it? Why do you do it?

Wait for what? I don't wait for anything. I don't wait for evidence for any other thing for which I have no knowledge or experience. And I don't wait for evidence of God.
Given that I don't consider belief a choice, what is the purpose of waiting... I'll believe when and if I do. There is no waiting.

 

[Write4U]

Can someone explain why this willful action by God should be ignored by theists? Seems mankind had it right once and then God got pissed off and threw a wrench in the whole works.

The Tower of Babel
…6The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech." 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.…quote]

Good thinking from the creator of humans in "his image".

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'm surprised you ever thought God was not part of the debate, given the nature of the thread.

the nature of the term 'anti-theist'??

So the context of the term is important,

as in the context of this thread?
I was just asking for inclusion of the word 'anti-theist'...
to which write4you answered satisfactory (no sense adding qualifier)
it was after that I decided to take the bait and argue with you guys to frustration (balerion didn't play nice, you did, congrats btw), thereby maybe you guys will learn where to start your debates instead of hi-jacking any thread you think is pro-God.(I highly doubt it)

go back and find out who turned this thread into a debate on God, atheist/ism and the nature thereof..(or anything more than a thread to discuss the inclusion of the word 'anti-theist')
it was an atheist.

(which came first the anti-theist or the atheist?)

 

[NMSquirrel]

The Tower of Babel
…6The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. 7"Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another's speech." 8So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.…quote]

no habla babel..

 

[Write4U]

the nature of the term 'anti-theist'??



as in the context of this thread?
I was just asking for inclusion of the word 'anti-theist'...
to which write4you answered satisfactory (no sense adding qualifier)
it was after that I decided to take the bait and argue with you guys to frustration (balerion didn't play nice, you did, congrats btw), thereby maybe you guys will learn where to start your debates instead of hi-jacking any thread you think is pro-God.(I highly doubt it)

go back and find out who turned this thread into a debate on God, atheist/ism and the nature thereof..(or anything more than a thread to discuss the inclusion of the word 'anti-theist')
it was an atheist.

(which came first the anti-theist or the atheist?)

Theist.

 

[Sarkus]

the nature of the term 'anti-theist'??

Indeed. Perhaps you think that one can address matters of definition of a term such as that without the notion of God somehow being included?

as in the context of this thread?

Not the thread per se, but the use of the term in the context of the discussion (noting how discussions can drift from the thread), and also in the context of the situation described.

I was just asking for inclusion of the word 'anti-theist'...
to which write4you answered satisfactory (no sense adding qualifier)

And thus the discussion can move on with little or no issue, surely?

it was after that I decided to take the bait and argue with you guys to frustration (balerion didn't play nice, you did, congrats btw), thereby maybe you guys will learn where to start your debates instead of hi-jacking any thread you think is pro-God.(I highly doubt it)

Where was the hi-jacking, and why is it not merely a natural transition of focus of the topic, given that you think the question was answered satisfactorily?
And is your method of "teaching" someone not to do something always to join in with what they want?

go back and find out who turned this thread into a debate on God, atheist/ism and the nature thereof..(or anything more than a thread to discuss the inclusion of the word 'anti-theist')
it was an atheist.

There is no real debate on God in this thread, only debates about the inclusion or not of "anti-theist", and then whether atheism is a choice or not. The latter is not a debate about God per se, but it is difficult to explain ones position (and thus why they might consider it a choice or not) without touching on those aspects.

(which came first the anti-theist or the atheist?)

Rather depends on your understanding of the term atheist. One is a definite reaction against theism, and the other (some would argue) is merely anyone who lacks belief in God.
And IF one considers God to be a man-made concept, atheists clearly came first, and anti-theists only arrived once theism did.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

As I thought, you have nothing to offer in this regard except empty claims. If you truly wished to show how God is imaginable you would simply provide such an imagining, and something more than "I imagine God as imaginable".

More importantly, due to the topic of the thread, if you truly wished to explain why God is unimaginable you would simply provide such reasoning, something more than ''God is unimaginable''.

How does that alter or add to what I wrote?

You seem to forget that children generally rebel against their upbringing in their teens, if they want to. You could say it is a tradition.
Hence they make their own decision about God. Even if they decide to believe what they learned from their environment.

Apologies, I thought that you'd be able to follow the logic: if the universe sprang from something, then there must be something for it to spring from. That necessitates the something.
Understand it now?

You don't have to apologise, I was just making sure of something.

Thank you for the clarification - however you still have it back to front: I lack belief because I am not aware of any evidence, and because I do not have experience or knowledge of God. Those things make God unimaginable (i.e. it is a conclusion, not a premise). Until I can imagine God, on what basis should I believe, and in what should I believe?

You're not aware of any evidence of something you deem non-existent, unimaginable, no knowledge of, and can not bring yourself to accept because of this? You have little, or no basis with that resume.

Nowhere? Nowhere for who? And in reference to what?

Who decides whether ones imagination is accurate?
How do we know their imaginations are accurate?

You would have to ask them.

It's a question you should ask?

Ah, if only it worked that way. For me it doesn't. I would also know it is only a guess, and not something I could ever believe as being true. I simply could not force myself to believe in its truth.
So round in circles we go.

Never the less, you still are. If you can imagine God to be the chair, at least it's start. There's plenty of literature giving explanations of God, and His nature. Your imagination could eventually progress on to that.

Unknown, yes. Whether or not he is ultimately unknowable to me... no idea. That is not an assessment I can make as, once again, I lack the knowledge, experience, etc.

God isn't entirely unknown. It's the thing you know to unimaginable, and lacking in evidence of existence. You must at least know why you conclude there is no evidence of God.

More it doesn't lead me to believe.

But it leads you to accept that there is a lack of evidence of an unknown, unimaginable, who knows what?

Interpreted, yes. But interpretation does not equate to truth.

But you can draw conclusions, and make decisions.

You'll have to clarify what you mean before I could answer that.

I mean do you simply follow your base instincts?

Why is it relevant then? What is the point / purpose of it?

Because it is integral to humans. The other alternative is, it is all made up. You don't believe that do you?

Do you equate accepting God with forcing oneself to believe in God?

And bear in mind that this thread is about atheism - so his existence or not is an issue, in as much as it is how we assess that that informs our position.

Either He exists or He doesn't. What is the point in discussing it?

I will accept on any terms that lead me to believe. I make no demands. I simply can not force myself to believe.

What do you mean by ''any terms''?
Give a couple of examples.

If God exists, would he not be capable of breaking through the wall?

Not if it's your desire to keep Him out.

And once again you evade.

I'm not evading anything. It has nothing to do with God, or theism. It is an atheist idea that doesn't really explain anything, but is a constant digression. I get it. It's poking fun, mocking, and all that stuff. But it's your domain, not mine. You should really try and understand from the perspective, then you would see it's a waste of time.

Wait for what? I don't wait for anything. I don't wait for evidence for any other thing for which I have no knowledge or experience. And I don't wait for evidence of God.
Given that I don't consider belief a choice, what is the purpose of waiting... I'll believe when and if I do. There is no waiting.

Exactly. You are in control of your life, you do what you want, when you want (within your capacity). You will decide if and when the time is right to consider belief in God. That's kinda what the article was suggesting.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

More importantly, due to the topic of the thread, if you truly wished to explain why God is unimaginable you would simply provide such reasoning, something more than ''God is unimaginable''.

You mean more than the numerous number of times I have said that I have no knowledge or experience of God on which to base any image? What more are you after?

You seem to forget that children generally rebel against their upbringing in their teens, if they want to. You could say it is a tradition.
Hence they make their own decision about God. Even if they decide to believe what they learned from their environment.

And many don't. And even those who do may not do so about their belief in God. But hey, who cares if you generalise to make a point.

You're not aware of any evidence of something you deem non-existent, unimaginable, no knowledge of, and can not bring yourself to accept because of this? You have little, or no basis with that resume.

Basis of what? My default rational position is to not consider anything and everything I am not aware of to exist. This is part of the notion of involuntarism. Otherwise I would be believing that everything exists unless I know it doesn't. And I can't do that. It's not a choice I have.

Who decides whether ones imagination is accurate?
How do we know their imaginations are accurate?

We can't know unless we have knowledge and experience of that which they try to explain to us.
If you try and explain or share an imagination of something I have no reference for, how can I possibly know.

It's a question you should ask?

Well, usually if you want to understand something about someone, asking them is a reasonable idea. There again, you simply tell me something about myself and assume it is true. S it guess you wouldn't ask and you would just tell them why they believe and I don't.

Never the less, you still are. If you can imagine God to be the chair, at least it's start. There's plenty of literature giving explanations of God, and His nature. Your imagination could eventually progress on to that.

And how do I know that those explanations are of God, and not someone's mere made-up notion of God? Where is the evidence that what they say is valid?

God isn't entirely unknown. It's the thing you know to unimaginable, and lacking in evidence of existence. You must at least know why you conclude there is no evidence of God.

God is entirely unknown. To describe god as currently unimaginable is not to know whether he is or not, just that I am currently incapable. To say that I lack evidence of his existence is to know nothing about god: it is not saying that there is no evidence, just that I have none. God, on this basis, is as known to me as anything that does not exist, and anything else I simply have no knowledge of. That is not any knowledge of god, it is an absence of knowledge.
And I conclude that I have no evidence of god because everything I am aware of can more rationally, to me, be equally attributed to the inner workings of the universe without the need for a deity. I.e. There is no evidence that supports the existence of a god above the non-existence of god, just as there is no evidence that supports the existence of leprechauns above the non-existence of leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or Xlaargath.

But it leads you to accept that there is a lack of evidence of an unknown, unimaginable, who knows what?

So, putting God aside for the moment, you believe there is evidence of an unknown, unimaginable who knows what (and I'm not referring to God)?

But you can draw conclusions, and make decisions.

I can, where I have a reference point to be able to do so. Otherwise I can only put it down as an unknown.

I mean do you simply follow your base instincts?

I would like to think not.

Because it is integral to humans. The other alternative is, it is all made up. You don't believe that do you?

It is a possibility that has more evidence in its favour than it being true.
But it remains a logical fallacy - argument from popularity. Unless you know why it is is integral to humans, it remains a fallacious argument, and I really hope you don't go down the question-begging route in trying to respond to that.

Either He exists or He doesn't. What is the point in discussing it?

We're not. We're discussing belief in either of those propositions.

What do you mean by ''any terms''?
Give a couple of examples.

I can't, as I don't know what they might be. But if I believe then surely I must have accepted on some terms that enable me to believe.

Not if it's your desire to keep Him out.

It's not my desire.

I'm not evading anything. It has nothing to do with God, or theism. It is an atheist idea that doesn't really explain anything, but is a constant digression. I get it. It's poking fun, mocking, and all that stuff. But it's your domain, not mine. You should really try and understand from the perspective, then you would see it's a waste of time.

It's not poking fun as used... It's getting across the notion of total lack of evidence and knowledge in an example that is (now) widely recognised. That you can't see past the perceived mockery when you are patently aware of the serious intention behind the example is simple evasion on your part.

Exactly. You are in control of your life, you do what you want, when you want (within your capacity). You will decide if and when the time is right to consider belief in God. That's kinda what the article was suggesting.

No, I won't decide. I either will believe or I will not, based on the evidence and knowledge I have at my disposal. That belief is not a choice when it comes, just as non-belief at the moment is not a choice, at least not to me and the way I perceive it, as is have tried to explain throughout.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

You mean more than the numerous number of times I have said that I have no knowledge or experience of God on which to base any image? What more are you after?

If you have no knowledge of God: How can you determine Him to be unimaginable? And how do you know you've never had any experience of Him?

And many don't. And even those who do may not do so about their belief in God.

Why wouldn't they do so, if it's a natural part of their human growth?

But hey, who cares if you generalise to make a point.

You just threw this in to take the attention away from you answer.

Basis of what? My default rational position is to not consider anything and everything I am not aware of to exist.

Basis to believe, as in, you don't have one. Not because you're incapable, because you don't want one.
Your whole reasoning on this, is circular. You cannot believe in God, because of clauses you have made.
Is the notion of God, non-different to you than the notion of the FSM?

Otherwise I would be believing that everything exists unless I know it doesn't. And I can't do that. It's not a choice I have.

It sounds as if you're saying you have no control over what you believe, that you will automatically believe something if the circumstances are favourable to you. It sounds as if you are quite protective of this part of you that will just up and believe without your consideration.

We can't know unless we have knowledge and experience of that which they try to explain to us.
If you try and explain or share an imagination of something I have no reference for, how can I possibly know.

Chances are we have knowledge and experience of quite a few things, but are unaware of them. And sometimes these awarenesses can be triggered, or stimulated into our waking consciousness (as opposed to sub-consciousness). In this way, anything can be a catalyst, it doesn't necessarily have to be rational science.

Well, usually if you want to understand something about someone, asking them is a reasonable idea. There again, you simply tell me something about myself and assume it is true. S it guess you wouldn't ask and you would just tell them why they believe and I don't.

I mean it is a question you should ask yourself.

I haven't said anything about what you believe. It's just not yet obvious to you that you give everything away in your explanations. You can't possibly lack belief in God because of lack of evidence, unless you know what would constitute evidence. How could you possibly know that there is a lack of evidence without knowledge of what the evidence is?

Where is the evidence that what they say is valid?

Where is the evidence that one needs evidence to learn or grow from?
And where is the evidence for that evidence?
You see how you've concocted a never ending series of questions?

God is entirely unknown.

If God is entirely unknown then how is it that people claim to know Him? How is it that there are ancient scriptures?
Or is this just you not calling people delusional, irrational, or any other situation some would care to mention?

To describe god as currently unimaginable is not to know whether he is or not, just that I am currently incapable.

Why are you incapable when most people are capable?

To say that I lack evidence of his existence is to know nothing about god: it is not saying that there is no evidence, just that I have none.

To lack evidence of God is to say that there is something other than the material world that I can fathom with my senses, that can be brought unto this material atmosphere so I can decide. It is to say that everything that is written about God, and through God (inspirational) is not knowledge, therefore it can be denied. It is to say ''I am not prepared to accept anything other than my own conception of God, as God. It is to say that God is separate to me (contrary to any claims), to deny the only concept of God there is (Supreme Being).

And I conclude that I have no evidence of god because everything I am aware of can more rationally, to me, be equally attributed to the inner workings of the universe without the need for a deity.

Of course. You'd expect that kind of completion from the mind of a Supreme Being.

There is no evidence that supports the existence of a god above the non-existence of god, just as there is no evidence that supports the existence of leprechauns above the non-existence of leprechauns. Or unicorns. Or Xlaargath.

For you, there isn't.

So, putting God aside for the moment, you believe there is evidence of an unknown, unimaginable who knows what (and I'm not referring to God)?

Well we both know I was referring to God. But I see no reference here. Who or what are you referring to?

I can, where I have a reference point to be able to do so. Otherwise I can only put it down as an unknown.

And those reference points are activated or deactivated by the standard preset filters, and we all know what yours are;
There is no evidence for God, God is not necessary because we have rational explanations to explain the inner workings of the universe. God is entirely unknown, and is unimaginable. It is impossible to believe in something that does not exist, and is unimaginable.

It is a possibility that has more evidence in its favour than it being true.

I didn't see that one coming.

But it remains a logical fallacy - argument from popularity. Unless you know why it is is integral to humans, it remains a fallacious argument, and I really hope you don't go down the question-begging route in trying to respond to that.

I'm not using it as an argument. You asked me a question and I gave you my opinion, just like you're giving yours.

I can't, as I don't know what they might be. But if I believe then surely I must have accepted on some terms that enable me to believe.

I think you have that mixed up with non-belief. And yes you are correct, you have accepted terms.
Your type of non belief is built upon, and maintained. As science and technology improve you will add more armoury to it.

It's not poking fun as used... It's getting across the notion of total lack of evidence and knowledge in an example that is (now) widely recognised. That you can't see past the perceived mockery when you are patently aware of the serious intention behind the example is simple evasion on your part.

You may think that it's similar to belief in God, but it's not. I can't say it any clearer than that. So for me, it's a waste of time.
Belief in God, is not the same as belief in anything one can think of. I don't know if that means anything to you, but you should at least understand that for me, using this kind of reasoning in theological discussion is probably no different than someone asking a neo-darwinist why there are still monkeys if we evolved from them (and please you don't need to explain it, or take it any further).
It's a complete waste of time for me. Sorry!

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Indeed. Perhaps you think that one can address matters of definition of a term such as that without the notion of God somehow being included?

notion of God? atheist/atheism..
now you are changing it again..
what is next?
you have come into this thread without determining intent and context from the OP author, you assumed the intent/context was an attack on atheist, and proceeded to argue such, regardless of any communication to the contrary, and as such have imposed your own opinions into it and turned it into a discussion on theology and belief rather than just the meaning or inclusion of the word anti-theist.

Where was the hi-jacking, and why is it not merely a natural transition of focus of the topic, given that you think the question was answered satisfactorily?

natural transition? where was hijacking? denial is another form of justification.
ignore any comments that would mean you are in the wrong.
(or argue to justify them)
(I am being sarcastic here)

(hi-jacking, the attempt to change the original intent and context of a thread by imposing your own intent/context into the thread)

And is your method of "teaching" someone not to do something always to join in with what they want?

cause you guys wont listen.
your too busy rejecting our beliefs and making it a point to try and convince us your beliefs are more accurate/better than the believers.
but when you guys are accused of any wrong doing, you ignore the comment and try and justify why you are right., in fact you guys tend to ignore anything that would even hint for you guys to drop it or STFU, you guys disrespect the beliefs of anyone who doesn't agree with you in this matter, and refuse to acknowledge any point for fear that we might convince you to believe(regardless of intent)
your opinions change when confronted with certain topics/points, and you guys assume every believer believes exactly the same, and you argue to that. your arguments tend to be misdirected and full of fallicies, and any discussions to that point are met with hostility, and justification. and I wish you guys would lay off so I would have the opportunity to argue my points with the believers.(and accuse them of the same.)(if I had that opportunity AND you were to pay attention, you would find me argueing just as I do with the non-believer)
most often I have found you guys are often full of predjudice and biases, and argue irrationally when confronted with a possibility of a believer being correct (regardless of belief in God)
even minor points are not acknowledged as right by you guys (no term fits right) you argue as if everything they say is wrong, and only listening for points to argue with instead of trying to listen to understand, you turn every/anything they say into a major battle.

with NO proof one way or the other, any hypothesis is possible.

yet you would argue that the believer is wrong, regardless of any points that show you guys you are just as guilty as those you condemn.(speaking to that which you guys argue about the believer, not the truth)

There is no real debate on God in this thread, only debates about the inclusion or not of "anti-theist", and then whether atheism is a choice or not

.
see, you changed it again.. after several times explaining this thread is about the term 'anti-theist' and you trying to change it to something it is not(and not acknowledging original intent), you are now changing your statement to include 'anti-theist'. and you changed it from a discussion on belief as a choice to atheism as a choice.. which although closely related is not quite the same.
(which brings up the question: if you defend atheism, wouldn't that make it more than just a description of a person who does not believe?)

The latter is not a debate about God per se, but it is difficult to explain ones position (and thus why they might consider it a choice or not) without touching on those aspects.
Rather depends on your understanding of the term atheist. One is a definite reaction against theism, and the other (some would argue) is merely anyone who lacks belief in God.
And IF one considers God to be a man-made concept, atheists clearly came first, and anti-theists only arrived once theism did.

you misunderstood the question, i was referring to you as the atheist and balerion as the anti-theist.. which one posted first?

 

[Sarkus]

notion of God? atheist/atheism..
now you are changing it again..
what is next?

Changing what exactly? Atheism is a position of a lack of belief. If one, such as yourself, claims that position to be a choice, as you did, then of course the notion of God is going to form part of the discussion in as much as, as explained, there are few other questions of belief that come close to it, making analogy difficult when it is simply easier to discuss the issue head on.
The discussion of notion of God might also include the notion that god is unknowable, unimaginable etc.
So what is your issue here with discussing aspects of belief in God in a thread, given that it has/had already clearly moved away from the mere inclusion or not of "anti-theist".
If you want the subsequent discussion moved to another thread, ask a mod to move it.
If you want to broaden the discussion into whether any/all belief is a choice, open a thread in the philosophy forum and shovel this discussion across to there.
But please stop whingeing!

you have come into this thread without determining intent and context from the OP author, you assumed the intent/context was an attack on atheist, and proceeded to argue such, regardless of any communication to the contrary, and as such have imposed your own opinions into it and turned it into a discussion on theology and belief rather than just the meaning or inclusion of the word anti-theist.

Care to go back and read post #2 in this very thread.
My second contribution (post #55) was once again a direct response to you, very much in keeping with the OP and some subsequent comments you made.
My third contribution (post #69) was to dismiss an article that Arne linked to that I found rather biased, preachy, etc.
Jan then picked up on that and from there the discussion (with you and him) has gone down the route it has.

So please do not accuse me as you have, as it simply is not true, as evidenced above.

natural transition? where was hijacking? denial is another form of justification.
ignore any comments that would mean you are in the wrong.
(or argue to justify them)
(I am being sarcastic here)

(hi-jacking, the attempt to change the original intent and context of a thread by imposing your own intent/context into the thread)

I wouldn't call it hijacking, as the original thread, to your own admission, was satisfactorily answered. Further, it is not as though we (you, Jan or I) are insisting that everyone get on board our discussion... It is rather a self-contained exchange.

cause you guys wont listen.
your too busy rejecting our beliefs and making it a point to try and convince us your beliefs are more accurate/better than the believers.

Where have I said my belief is better or more accurate?
Different, yes. Better? Is there a better? For some, possibly, for others possibly not.

but when you guys are accused of any wrong doing, you ignore the comment and try and justify why you are right., in fact you guys tend to ignore anything that would even hint for you guys to drop it or STFU, you guys disrespect the beliefs of anyone who doesn't agree with you in this matter, and refuse to acknowledge any point for fear that we might convince you to believe(regardless of intent)

Wrong doing? As in what. Supposedly hijacking a thread? There are better ways to resolve that, if it is of that much concern to you, than joining in as you have done.
If it is other wrong doing, then what are you accusing me of now? And where is the evidence? Perhaps you think a mere accusation is sufficient??
Where have I disrespected the beliefs of anyone? Where have I refused to acknowledge any point? Or do you see not agreeing with it as a refusal to acknowledge?

your opinions change when confronted with certain topics/points, and you guys assume every believer believes exactly the same, and you argue to that. your arguments tend to be misdirected and full of fallicies, and any discussions to that point are met with hostility, and justification.

Where on earth is all this coming from??
Where have I changed my opinion when confronted with certain topics?
Where have I assumed every believer believes exactly the same, and where have I argued to that?
Where are the arguments misdirected?
Where are the fallacies that you claim they are full of?
Or perhaps you see this as hostility, to ask the accuser for just a shred of evidence to support their case?

and I wish you guys would lay off so I would have the opportunity to argue my points with the believers.(and accuse them of the same.)(if I had that opportunity AND you were to pay attention, you would find me argueing just as I do with the non-believer)

You can argue your points with whoever you want. No one is stopping you. If you don't want to read responses from others just skip through them.
Admittedly I nor Jan are not averse to long posts, but that is neither here nor there.
What is stopping you? And don't say that I am, or that Jan is... I have only responded to your responses to me, and Jan's responses to me.

But despite your rather weird way, by joining in, of showing that you would rather any/all discussions not relating to "anti-theist" cease within this thread, I shall bow out after this response.

most often I have found you guys are often full of predjudice and biases, and argue irrationally when confronted with a possibility of a believer being correct (regardless of belief in God)
even minor points are not acknowledged as right by you guys (no term fits right) you argue as if everything they say is wrong, and only listening for points to argue with instead of trying to listen to understand, you turn every/anything they say into a major battle.

And if those minor points are not right? Or are not considered to be right? Why should they be accepted as they relate to us?

with NO proof one way or the other, any hypothesis is possible.

Yet not all hypotheses are help by individuals to rational.

yet you would argue that the believer is wrong, regardless of any points that show you guys you are just as guilty as those you condemn.(speaking to that which you guys argue about the believer, not the truth)

Again with the unsupported accusation.

see, you changed it again.. after several times explaining this thread is about the term 'anti-theist' and you trying to change it to something it is not(and not acknowledging original intent), you are now changing your statement to include 'anti-theist'. and you changed it from a discussion on belief as a choice to atheism as a choice.. which although closely related is not quite the same.

Where is this change you accuse me of? Does this thread contain debate about the term "anti-theist" or not? Where have I ever said that this thread has not included such? I may have said that the current debate has moved on from that, but that does not delete previous debates in the thread.
And I never changed it from belief as a choice to atheism as a choice: to me this matter of choice or not was always about atheism as a choice! I held it to be implicit from the thread title that the debate on belief was first and foremost about atheism as a choice. Which should have been obvious whenever I tried to explain how I saw belief in god as being rather different than mere belief I can beat my brother at poker. So let's just put that one down to an ironic lack of communication.

(which brings up the question: if you defend atheism, wouldn't that make it more than just a description of a person who does not believe?)

No. You may want to add another descriptor in front of atheism, such as "argumentative", but that is separate to my atheism.

you misunderstood the question, i was referring to you as the atheist and balerion as the anti-theist.. which one posted first?

Ah.
Then the anti-theist did.
Definitely.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Yet not all hypotheses are help by individuals to rational.

??

you are just as guilty as those you condemn

Again with the unsupported accusation.

you,atheist,argumentitive atheist,anti-theist,they, whatever pronoun you are more comfortable with..
with my arguments, that pronoun tends to become irrelevant, as whatever I tend to argue about ends up being applicable to most ALL ppl.
IOW do not take my 'you' to be personal, sometimes I get caught up in the moment, please confirm I was actually talking about you personally before going defensive. not all my 'you' were generic, some were meant to you personaly, but I don't want to get into it as it tends to be a 'yes you are/no im not' fight, you do not have to agree or disagree with me, they are meant not for accusation but for contemplation (see next point) (confrontational contemplation??)
IOW, sorry..

and why would I have to support that statement? (actually I believe I have touched on it here and there)
if you are honest with yourself, you would consider it before dismissing it.
but then again, I tend to expect better out of ppl than what they actually are.. I tend to expect them to be more honest with themselves than they are. this is my delusion, (and actually one I like)

so lets try to talk about something semi-neutral, phrased according to what you have told me about yourself, as my memory may be a little wack(see below), but I do listen,

What does the average atheist accuse theists of?
(actually I pry would be better to argue this with balerion..)


<wack memory>
my file clerk (the one that recalls memories) doesn't always bring back what I ask for(can't fire him, cause no one else wants the job!)..I think its an adhd thing, I also believe it is still all there, my brain records everything, its just accessing those recordings I have issues with.

 

[Sarkus]

??

Supposed to be "not all hypotheses are held by individuals to be rational." ... I blame iPad auto-correct.

IOW, sorry..

Meh. Already forgotten.

and why would I have to support that statement? (actually I believe I have touched on it here and there)
if you are honest with yourself, you would consider it before dismissing it.

It's not a matter dismissing it, just of requiring accusations to be supported. As with any claim. That the accusation has been made is enough for me not to dismiss it out of hand. But too many accusations are thrown around without grounds, in an attempt to deflect, to obfuscate etc. By providing support you show that the accusation has ground.

but then again, I tend to expect better out of ppl than what they actually are.. I tend to expect them to be more honest with themselves than they are. this is my delusion, (and actually one I like)

Don't worry, we'll weed it out of you eventually!

so lets try to talk about something semi-neutral, phrased according to what you have told me about yourself, as my memory may be a little wack(see below), but I do listen,

What does the average atheist accuse theists of?
(actually I pry would be better to argue this with balerion..)

Probably, as my answer would be for you to ask the average atheist.
I'm not sure the average atheist would be on this forum, though.
If I was to respond from what I perceive would be the expected stereotype, I would say the answer is "being irrational". But they judge the irrationality by their own experiences, i.e. what they really mean is "I find your position to be irrational". Which has a rather different meaning.

<wack memory>
my file clerk (the one that recalls memories) doesn't always bring back what I ask for(can't fire him, cause no one else wants the job!)..I think its an adhd thing, I also believe it is still all there, my brain records everything, its just accessing those recordings I have issues with.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena,
Here's the question again. Why is it necessary?

It isn't necessary, it's inevitable.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Supposed to be "not all hypotheses are held by individuals to be rational." ... I blame iPad auto-correct.

not all irrationality is irrational, iow, rationality is in the eye of the beholder, even the most psychotic think they are rational.

I'm not sure the average atheist would be on this forum, though.

true enough..

thought of another analogy for my file clerk.. he is out chasing butterflies.. (oh look, a butterfly..)