How can God not exist?

[glaucon]

I'm afraid I have addressed it, but I go through it breifly.

I gave definition of 'religion', which fitted my analasys.
I gave a definition of 'naturalism', the belief system of the atheist.

jan.

Sorry, but that's insufficient, as has been noted by Dywyddyr.

You're being both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest here.
You're going to have to hash this out, or I'll have to hit you with a Warning....

 

[YoYoPapaya]

Because atheism is defined as the absence of religiousity. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[Dywyddyr]

II gave definition of 'religion'

And that defintion was shown to be flawed.

I gave a definition of 'naturalism', the belief system of the atheist.

And that "definition" is a philosophy, not a "belief system" and, as Enmos pointed out, is not universally held by all atheists.

So I'll ask you again to substantiate your claim.

I'll give you some quotes:

Atheism is Not a Religion:
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.

Atheism is Not an Ideology:
An ideology is any "body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." There are two key elements necessary for an ideology: it must be a group of ideas or beliefs and this group must provide guidance. Neither is true of atheism. First, atheism is by itself just the absence of belief in gods; it's not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Second, atheism by itself offers no guidance on moral, social, or political matters. Atheism, like theism, can be part of an ideology, but neither can be an ideology by themselves.

Atheism is Not a Philosophy:
A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere. The same would be true if we defined atheism narrowly as denial of the existence of gods: that single belief is not a system of principles. As with ideology, atheism can be part of a philosophy.

Atheism is Not a Belief System:
A belief system is a "faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society." This is simpler than an ideology or philosophy because it's just a group of beliefs; they don't have to be interconnected and they don't have to provide guidance. This still doesn't describe atheism; even if we narrowed atheism to denying the existence of gods, that's still just one belief and a single belief is not a set of beliefs. Theism is also a single belief that is not a belief system. Both theism and atheism are part of belief systems, though.

 

[spidergoat]

Forgive her for she knows not what she does.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorry, but that's insufficient, as has been noted by Dywyddyr.

You're being both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest here.
You're going to have to hash this out, or I'll have to hit you with a Warning....

There is nothing disigenuous, or intellectually dishonest about my claim, as
I ha ve given adequate explanation for it.
As i stated the definition of ''religion'' given by me, was in relation to my original statement regarding ''self-centeredness''. Because something is regarded as ''colloquial'' doesn't mean it cannot be a definition in another sense.

With regard to ''naturalism'', Wikipedia states that it is also a belief.

Naturalism originally meant "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and "the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."

So please take your beef up with them, as i'm only the messenger.

jan.

 

[glaucon]

There is nothing disigenuous, or intellectually dishonest about my claim, as
I ha ve given adequate explanation for it.
As i stated the definition of ''religion'' given by me, was in relation to my original statement regarding ''self-centeredness''. Because something is regarded as ''colloquial'' doesn't mean it cannot be a definition in another sense.

Actually, it does.
You are using the term "religion" in an unconventional way.

The clock is ticking....

 

[YoYoPapaya]

The messenger of whom?

You still need to explain your use of the term "atheist religion"
All you do is saying the same things over and over after they already have been proven wrong. There is no such thing as an atheist religion. Just like there are no married bachelors. It's a contradiction of terms.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As i stated the definition of ''religion'' given by me, was in relation to my original statement regarding ''self-centeredness''. Because something is regarded as ''colloquial'' doesn't mean it cannot be a definition in another sense.

Glaucon covered this.

With regard to ''naturalism'', Wikipedia states that it is also a belief.

Naturalism originally meant "the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" and "the idea or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world."

So what?
As stated previously: not all atheists subscribe to this.

The ONLY thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god.
Strictly speaking it's not even an "ism".

Ball back in your court: I'm still waiting for substantiation of your claim.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Actually, it does.
You are using the term "religion" in an unconventional way.

The clock is ticking....

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Here is the first definition of the dictionary link (religion) I gave.
It does not give exclusivety of how the beliefs are conducted. It only
states; ...especially when considered as the creation of .....
It's primary concern is that it is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Are you saying atheism does not have beliefs concerning such causes, including what is not to be considered as such?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Are you saying atheism does not have beliefs concerning such causes, including what is not to be considered as such?

Which part do you constantly not read?

The ONLY thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god.

And more dishonesty: you note the part:

states; ...especially when considered as the creation of .....

and leave out "a superhuman agency or agencies".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

So what?
As stated previously: not all atheists subscribe to this.

That is your assumption, not mine.
Not all theists subscribe to religion either.

The ONLY thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god.
Strictly speaking it's not even an "ism".

So you're going to deny the term ''atheism'' now?

Ball back in your court: I'm still waiting for substantiation of your claim.

You need to hit the ball in order to put it back in may court.
Can you respond to post 120 please?

Oh, and please explain this
LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group



jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

and leave out "a superhuman agency or agencies".[/QUOTE]

According to that quote, it is not contingent on the definition.

jan.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

What's the time on that ticking clock?

 

[Pandaemoni]

The questiion is ''How can God not exist?''
How is it possible to bring into existence the concept of something
that does not exist?
Why go to all the problem of maintaining an idea if it has completely
no basis in reality?

And just as a mental exercise, can you think of something that does
not exist and has no basis in, not conceived of in, or relevant to, society?

First of all, I deny that God has no basis in pre-existing concepts. One view of "gods" is sociological and therefore divorced from faith.

Gods are believed to have developed, in one sociological school of thought, as a personification of elements in nature. Humans developed the capacity to see patterns (sometimes patterns that are based on happenstance), and seeing the patterns of nature we also sought to control them by appeasing the forces the nature as if they were living beings. We see patterns so routinely that we forever personify inanimate objects and other animals. If the TV is on the fritz, we smack it to teach it a lesson.

From there, gods became personified further as having actual bodies, and eventually human forms or something roughly equivalent.

From there we started competing over which gods were greatest, hoping that by backing a particular god, he would give us special attention and help us out compete other people. That competition led to a monotheistic cult in Egypt even before Moses and Yahweh.

God in the Abrahamic tradition was further personalized as a father figure, as noted above, but one can easily see the development as a natural progression from the worship of natural forces into, eventually, the worship of a singular all powerful omniscient God. (Note that we arrived at that position, even though the stories make no sense: God creates the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and creates man, but doesn't foresee that man will eat the fruit of the tree? So, how is that "omniscience"? Or, if He knew that was coming, then why the drama of telling them not to do it and the anger after they did? The Old Testament makes more sense if God is not omniscient at least about the future...but in that case, He's not omnipotent since there is a thing he cannot do.)

That is a natural progression of pre-existing concepts.

As for something we can conceive of that has no relevance (in fact, it cannot logically exist at all), how about the set of all sets, the "universal set"? It's the analogue of the all-powerful God, and mankind invented that, then took a long time in figuring out why it leads to a logical paradox. We know that it can't logically exist, yet I can still conceive of it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That is your assumption, not mine.

Wrong. It's fact.

So you're going to deny the term ''atheism'' now?

Also a fact.

Atheism is not an "Ism":
When people talk about "isms," they are referring to some "distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice" like liberalism, communism, conservatism, or pacifism. Atheism has the suffix "ism," so it belongs in this group, right? Wrong: the suffix "ism" also means a "state, condition, attribute, or quality" like pauperism, astigmatism, heroism, anachronism, or metabolism. Is astigmatism a theory? Is metabolism a doctrine? Is anachronism a practice? Not every word that ends in "ism" is a system of beliefs or an "ism" in the way people usually mean it. Failure to realize this can be behind other errors here.

There is no doctrine to atheism. It's that simple.

You need to hit the ball in order to put it back in may court.
Can you respond to post 120 please?

This one:

You seem to think that just because you say something, it should be taken as truth. Why is that?

Because I can back up my comments and statements. You can't.

Oh, and please explain this
LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

Why should I explain what American courts rule? They don't affect me, and it wouldn't be the first time they've made a ruling that comes across as stupid.
In fact, I'm not the only one to dispute it:

"a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence." "Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

(From your own link).

Still waiting...
Do you think you can manage to be honest?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dywyddyr,

and leave out "a superhuman agency or agencies".

According to that quote, it is not contingent on the definition.

jan.

Then there was no need to quote the portion you did at all, since THAT part IS contingent on superhuman agencies.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Pandaemoni,

First of all, I deny that God has no basis in pre-existing concepts. One view of "gods" is sociological and therefore divorced from faith.

I'm not denying that as a historically modern phenomenon. But if there was a
period of time when humans did not have any idea of God (did not exist), then
how do you account for its introduction.

Gods are believed to have developed, in one sociological school of thought, as a personification of elements in nature.

What is the basis of that belief?

Humans developed the capacity to see patterns (sometimes patterns that are based on happenstance), and seeing the patterns of nature we also sought to control them by appeasing the forces the nature as if they were living beings.

These are massive leaps of conscious awareness.
Why did humans seek to control nature in the first place?
And how does assigning living beings to nature offer a solution?

We see patterns so routinely that we forever personify inanimate objects and other animals. If the TV is on the fritz, we smack it to teach it a lesson.

But not to the point where we would create a supreme being that is the original cause of all causes.
That seems a tad extreme don't you think?

From there, gods became personified further as having actual bodies, and eventually human forms or something roughly equivalent.

Firstly, there is no evidence to corroberate this idea, and as an explanation,
it is contigent purely on the notion that God does NOT exist, which, at best, is a personal belief.

From there we started competing over which gods were greatest, hoping that by backing a particular god, he would give us special attention and help us out compete other people. That competition led to a monotheistic cult in Egypt even before Moses and Yahweh.

How do you know this?
Or have you arrived at this conclusion ''because there can be no other
explanation''?

God in the Abrahamic tradition was further personalized as a father figure, as noted above, but one can easily see the development as a natural progression from the worship of natural forces into, eventually, the worship of a singular all powerful omniscient God.

The trouble with this idea is that all scripturally based religions have the concept of both a one supreme god above all others, and, gods who are powerfull, but not supreme. Which is what you'd expect to find if God existed.
Even in third world countries, despite worship of gods, ghosts, or ancestors, there is an understanding of a supreme being above everything.

(Note that we arrived at that position, even though the stories make no sense: God creates the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and creates man, but doesn't foresee that man will eat the fruit of the tree? So, how is that "omniscience"? Or, if He knew that was coming, then why the drama of telling them not to do it and the anger after they did? The Old Testament makes more sense if God is not omniscient at least about the future...but in that case, He's not omnipotent since there is a thing he cannot do.)

Where you seem to lack understanding, is the idea of relationships.
If the individuals are essentially made of the same stuff as God (spirit), albeit a minute particle, then they have the same abilities as God, albeit in a minute sense. God has the ability to choose, then so would his creation.
From my perspective, it show his omnipotence.

That is a natural progression of pre-existing concepts.

Not really.
You've yet to show why man would need to control nature, and then
give it human qualities, because that is the crooks of your hypothesis.
Without that information, everything falls apart, and is accepted dogmatically.

As for something we can conceive of that has no relevance (in fact, it cannot logically exist at all), how about the set of all sets, the "universal set"? It's the analogue of the all-powerful God, and mankind invented that, then took a long time in figuring out why it leads to a logical paradox. We know that it can't logically exist, yet I can still conceive of it.

''We'' don't know that it can't logically exist.
Without it, nothing makes real sense.

jan.

 

[Kumar]

Try to find , God, angels, devils, positives, negatives, good act, balance, truth sin etc. in above animation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There are no angels, devils, good acts, sin or "truth" in that. Nor god.

 

[Kumar]

There are no angels, devils, good acts, sin or "truth" in that. Nor god.

There is but God is considered as indescribable to commons. Therefore try to find these concepts in it and in all forces.

If you can't, tell the in indicated properties of these, I shall show you accordingly.