In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

On the other hand, quite a few of us lack the belief that God exists, in fact. Not lack the belief that the concept of God exists, mind you, but lack the belief that an actual, living God actually exists in reality (and not just in the mind).

So "the actual living God" as you put it, is different to the concept of God that you hold.
Interesting.

And then there is also Jan's usual attempt to muddy the waters by distinguishing a belief in something from a belief that the something exists. Jan never explains what he means by that distinction, even though it is a simple one, because to explain it would be to reveal it is as another trivial point that anybody can grasp, rather than as a profundity that only Jan has access to.

The distinction lies in the wording of the two phrases.

Atheists typically lack a belief that God exists, in reality, as opposed to as a concept in the mind.

I don't think you can make a distinction between God and the concept of God in your own mind. I think the original definition of atheists holds. Atheists are without God, and as such create a concept of God. This explains why atheists always want God to be shown to them. Some atheist even claim belief in God, due to upbringing, or pressure of some sort, only to come to the conclusion that God does not exist, and they were living a lie. Atheist's almost always use the term "your God/god" when referring to individual theists. This is because they only see God as a concept in that individuals mind.
The more you refer to the original meaning applied to the word "atheist", the easier it is to understand the collective aspect of the atheist mind set.

I lack the belief that unicorns exist (in reality, as opposed to as a concept in my mind).

So do I.
Now. Do we lack belief in them for the same reason?

I lack belief in unicorns, because I can't trust in something that I don't believe exists in reality.

So IOW. Unicorns don't exist, until such time when one can be seen.
God doesn't exist, until such time God is proven to exist. If God doesn't currently exist, you are without God. Which happens to be the original meaning of atheist. There's no getting round it.

Now watch as Jan tries to play with the definitions, to move the goalposts around some more, to tell the atheists that their concept of God is wrong, etc. These the games Jan insists on playing.

I'm not the one shifting goalposts James. And the chances are, as an atheist, your concept of God is most likely wrong, because it is difficult to grasp to get a good likeness of something that doesn't actually exist.
I've asked for examples of things that don't actually exist, and I've yet to get a real answer. Unicorns are made up of other animals which do exist. Dragons are basically reptiles.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Equally, God can be whatever you, as a theist, concocts. Your God doesn't exist for atheists any more than any other

It seems as though someone didn't check his definitions. Theists believe in God. That doesn't suggest a concoction. I agree that there people who claim to be theist, but are really atheist (proper meaning). But by definition, a theist believes in God, and does not have to concoct a concept of God to believe in.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

If you can find one that deals with thing that Actually doesn't exist, you may be on to something. But I doubt you will, as no one knows what actually does not exist, outside concocting ideas of combinations of things that do exist. But I won't hold my breath.

Ah, the "you can't prove me wrong" gambit, while refusing to adhere to English norms by cherry-picking the meaning of words.
Please stop trolling, Jan.

What is a square circle?

Let's define them as "something impossible; something that by definition can not exist".
Do you lack square-circles, Jan?
Is there an absence of square-circles in your life?
Given their definition, your only non-trolling answer can be "yes" to both questions.
QED - you lack things that do not exist.
Oh, look, that's included in the definition, even if not the specific example given.

There is no ridiculous behaviour, you're just passed because you cannot get round my points.

Your points are erroneous, as shown, and your continued game to avoid facing this fact is pathetic, juvenile, and disrespectful.
Please stop being a troll.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Even more: there are as many concepts of God as there are people. Every one of them unique, like snowflakes. Every one of them as valid as Jan's, and none of them falsifiable.

And yes, that includes those whose concept of God is that it's a concept only.

How do you know this?
Is it because you only have concepts of God to work with, therefore it must be the same for everyone?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Please stop trolling, Jan.

I'm not trolling Baldeee, so stop trying bring this up. You can't get around my points so rather than concede, you seek to get me banned.

Let's define them as "something impossible; something that by definition can not exist".
Do you lack square-circles, Jan?

No. Because they don't exist.
What? Is this a trick question?

Is there an absence of square-circles in your life?

No. There cannot be an absence of something that doesn't actually exist.

Given their definition, your only non-trolling answer can be "yes" to both questions.

Wrong. If they don't exist, I can never lack them, or be in absense of them.
And please stop accusing me of trolling.

QED - you lack things that do not exist.
Oh, look, that's included in the definition, even if not the specific example given

You're talking nonsense, and you know it.

Please stop being a troll.

I'm not being a troll. Please stop making these false accusations.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I'm not trolling Baldeee, so stop trying bring this up. You can't get around my points so rather than concede, you seek to get me banned.

I am not trying to get you banned, I'm simply asking you not to post what you know to be wrong, dressing it up in a game of semantics.
To continue what you're doing is trolling.
All you can do is continue to assert your claim that one can not lack what does not exist, despite the dictionaries suggesting otherwise.
Instead you rely on the example given by the dictionary as being exhaustive.
Pathetic, and trolling.

No. Because they don't exist.

It is no wonder that people give up on discussions with you when you have your own language.

What? Is this a trick question?

No, it's not a trick question, Jan.
And your answer shows how deceitful and dishonest you can be.

No. There cannot be an absence of something that doesn't actually exist.

So you claim, even though the definitions are against you.

Wrong. If they don't exist, I can never lack them, or be in absense of them.

If something does not exist then by definition there is an absence of that thing.
If you genuinely can not grasp this then I pity you.

And please stop accusing me of trolling.

I have been assuming that you are of at least moderate intelligence and able to understand English.
Thus your actions to deliberately fail to comprehend fall under the banner of trolling.

You're talking nonsense, and you know it.

No, Jan, it is included in the dictionary.
You know, where synonymous for "absence" was "non-existence".
That you think it is nonsense is just more evidence of your trolling.

I'm not being a troll. Please stop making these false accusations.

The evidence suggests you are.
You refuse to acknowledge the full meaning of "lack", of "absence".
You consider it nonsense that "non-existence" is given as a synonym for "absence" which is actually delusional on your part.
You divert the thread for the matter of not wanting to admit to your error in thinking, and rely on semantic games to extricate yourself.
I call it as I see it, Jan.
I don't want you banned, I simply would like you to refrain from such actions and be sensible and respectful.
For whatever reason, you can't seem to do that.

But for my part, I am done discussing with someone who clearly has no interest in it.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If they don't exist, I can never lack them

As I believe that Gods do not exist, given there appears no evidence that could survive the scrutiny of science, and that it is clear all scriptures were invented by men to construct a myth, I can not be in lack of Gods. I lack swallowing the myth.
Alex

 

[Sarkus]

So this entire linguistic and semantic detritus stems from Jan claiming that one "can not lack belief in something that does not exist" in response to the atheist asserting their position to be a lack of belief in the existence of God (or lack of belief that God exists, to put it in a way less ambiguous to some).

And Jan claims, through definitions provided, and examples thereof provided, that one can only lack what actually exists.

And just to be clear, everyone else here is quite happy that if something does not exist then one necessarily is without it, lacks it, it is absent etc.

So all this stems from Jan failing to apply even his own definition/understanding to the atheist position, which to reiterate is that atheists lack belief that God exists.

So let us begin....
Theists have belief that God exists, whether they consciously consider it or jump straight to having "belief in God" (for which a necessary prerequisite is that they must believe God exists - unless one thinks you can believe in something that you do not also believe actually exist?).

So there exists "belief that God exists".
Okay, and Jan, this is for you... atheists lack this.

That's right: atheists lack what you have: belief that God exists. Or are you going to argue that no one has belief that God exists? That this belief does not itself exist? No? Okay, so we have established beyond doubt that "belief that God exists" is something that some people have, and thus by your very own understanding, it is possible that some people lack this.

These people, Jan, who lack belief that God exists, are called atheists.

Note, throughout this, the issue of whether God actually exists or not is irrelevant. What matters to the question in hand is what people believe: it is possible to believe that things exist when in fact they don't, and it is possible to believe things don't exist when in fact they do.

So if God does not exist, it is entirely possible that some people will believe that God does exist. And entirely possible that others will lack this belief.
Similarly if God does exist, it is entirely possible that some people will believe that God does exist. And entirely possible that others will lack this belief.


Now, Jan, if you have any decency, respect, common sense, nous, desire not to be a troll, etc, you will accept your mistake, preferably apologise to everyone, but more importantly you will stop spreading your semantic detritus across the thread when you can't even apply it to your own words.

Thank you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As I believe that Gods do not exist, given there appears no evidence that could survive the scrutiny of science, and that it is clear all scriptures were invented by men to construct a myth, I can not be in lack of Gods. I lack swallowing the myth.
Alex

I totally agree with your self-assessment.
Am I correct in saying you are without God?

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Now, Jan, if you have any decency, respect, common sense, nous, desire not to be a troll, etc, you will accept your mistake, preferably apologise to everyone, but more importantly you will stop spreading your semantic detritus across the thread when you can't even apply it to your own words.

Thank you.

Good luck with that

I would have held off with the Thank you until the apologie was posted

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Am I correct in saying you are without God?

I am without belief in the myth that you describe as God.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is no wonder that people give up on discussions with you when you have your own language.

Oh so square circles do exit (whatever they are).
Either they exist or not. If they do exist then it can be said that I am in absence of them. If they don't exist, then nobody can know what they are, or anything about them. Why? Because they don't actually exist.
Furthermore you know I'm correct.

So you claim, even though the definitions are against you.

The definitions back up what I'm saying. I don't need to go searching for synonyms in an attempt to back up my claim, The actual definitions are very clear and concise.

If something does not exist then by definition there is an absence of that thing.

What thing?

No, Jan, it is included in the dictionary.
You know, where synonymous for "absence" was "non-existence".
That you think it is nonsense is just more evidence of your trolling.

Yeah right! The non-existent look on his face. Deeep.

I don't want you banned, I simply would like you to refrain from such actions and be sensible and respectful.
For whatever reason, you can't seem to

I'm not being disrespectful at all.
I can back everything up with definition and basic intelligence.
You just don't like being scrutinized, especially if you don't like the outcome. You don't to mind scrutinizing theists, or theism, and your always negative. I don't see you calling out a couple of atheists who regularly depict theists as being delusional, brainwashed, or plain stupid.

But for my part, I am done discussing with someone who clearly has no interest in it.

You was done quite a while ago Baldeee, when you made a desparate attempt to prove me wrong with your bag of definitions.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am without belief in the myth that you describe as God.

Alex

Really!
I understand that for you God does not exist. Your position actually falls under the umbrella of the original meaning of atheist (without God), which you define yourself as. God, for you, is purely a concept, nothing more. You are without God.

Even though you have attempted to expand your conclusion to mean God does not exist for anyone, alas, you are limited to your designation.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And just to be clear, everyone else here is quite happy that if something does not exist then one necessarily is without it, lacks it, it is absent etc.

You'd need to tell them what the thing is, otherwise they wont know what it is they lack.

So let us begin....
Theists have belief that God exists, whether they consciously consider it or jump straight to having "belief in God" (for which a necessary prerequisite is that they must believe God exists - unless one thinks you can believe in something that you do not also believe actually exist?).

So there exists "belief that God exists".
Okay, and Jan, this is for you... atheists lack this.

Obviously theists believe that God exists. That is the meaning of theist (you can include gods, but it makes no difference)
Theist do not believe in God, the way atheist don't believe in God. It is not a case atheists are without God, and theists are with God. Just thought I'd drop that one in.

That's right: atheists lack what you have: belief that God exists.

We don't have a belief that God exists. Existence only becomes an issue when discussing with atheists. I don't even consider believing that I exist. I simply accept that I do.

That this belief does not itself exist? No?

It's not a matter of whether or not such a belief exists, it's just obvious that God exists, and we don't have to dwell on it.

Okay, so we have established beyond doubt that "belief that God exists" is something that some people have, and thus by your very own understanding, it is possible that some people lack this.

No, you've established a concoction of theism. God's existence is only an issue with atheists. You don't believe that God exists, for whatever reason. The underlying reason, in light of all perspectives, is because you are without God.

From your own perspective you can claim that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, because you cannot detect God, because you are without God.
What you lack belief in is what Alex pointed out... concepts of God.

Now, Jan, if you have any decency, respect, common sense, nous, desire not to be a troll, etc, you will accept your mistake, preferably apologise to everyone, but more importantly you will stop spreading your semantic detritus across the thread when you can't even apply it to your own words

What should I apologise for?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

You'd need to tell them what the thing is, otherwise they wont know what it is they lack.

Actually it is sufficient to know only that it does not exist. From there it is necessarily true that you lack it.
Using other vernacular you will be familiar with: if I lack something then it will not exist for me, although it may exist for other people.
So from this we can interpret "lack" to mean "not exist for me".
If something does not exist at all then it is necessarily true that it does not exist for anyone. Since "me" is a subset of "anyone", it is necessarily true that it therefore does not exist for me.
The other word for this is... lack.

Obviously theists believe that God exists. That is the meaning of theist (you can include gods, but it makes no difference)

Oh, boy. So now you're accepting that the meaning of theist is someone who believes that God exists, rather than your previous assertions that a theist is someone who believes in God, you being at pains to differentiate the two.
What's that word... Oh, yes: consistency.

Theist do not believe in God, the way atheist don't believe in God. It is not a case atheists are without God, and theists are with God. Just thought I'd drop that one in.

Theists don't believe in God the way atheists don't believe in God??? Are you back to stating the obvious as though it some profound and insightful piece of wisdom? If theists didn't believe in God the way atheists don't believe in God then the theist would be atheist, if indeed they would be called anything given that no one would believe in God.

We don't have a belief that God exists.

Oh, sheesh, here we go again. What did you say only a few sentences above: "Obviously theists believe that God exists". And now you are saying you don't have a belief that God exists.
FFS, Jan! Consistency, please!
[qupte]Existence only becomes an issue when discussing with atheists. I don't even consider believing that I exist. I simply accept that I do.[/quote]It doesn't matter when the issue arises: either you have the belief you exist or you don't. If you think you have knowledge then this is simply an appropriately justified belief that is actually true.

It's not a matter of whether or not such a belief exists, it's just obvious that God exists, and we don't have to dwell on it.

It is a matter for the purposes of getting you to accept your error.
You have stated earlier in your post that you believe that God exists, because "obviously theists believe that God exists". So the belief exists. And it is this belief that the atheist lacks.
Thus it is quite correct, even using your limited application of the term "lack" to say that atheists lack belief that God exists.

No, you've established a concoction of theism.

I have done no such thing. You have stated, quite clearly, that "obviously theists believe that God exists". I am simply using that. You have this belief which means it is something that people can lack. Such people are called atheist, and atheists lack belief that God exists.

God's existence is only an issue with atheists. You don't believe that God exists, for whatever reason. The underlying reason, in light of all perspectives, is because you are without God.

Irrelevant. The purpose here is to show you that you are wrong when you say that atheists can not lack belief that God exists.

From your own perspective you can claim that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, because you cannot detect God, because you are without God.
What you lack belief in is what Alex pointed out... concepts of God.

I am not talking about lack of evidence, or belief in God. I am talking about belief that God exists. This also doesn't need any concept other than the one you, as a theist, come up with. You have belief that God (your concept) exists. The atheist lacks this belief that God (your concept) exists.
And before you go down the path of trying to claim that God is not a concept, a concept is simply whatever we mentally experience when we think of something, whether that thing actually exists or not. So no more of your semantic garbage, please.

There really is nothing else to it.
You are wrong. Atheists lack belief that God exists. It is possible for atheists to lack this, even using your own applicability of the word "lack", as shown. It is what all atheists have in common.

What should I apologise for?

For being wrong, despite your efforts to squirm out of realising such by filling the thread with semantic manure. For your inconsistencies. To those who think you have insulted them.
For starters.

 

[akoreamerican]

Ah, the old 'it's patently obvious' gaff. It's better known as 'argument by incredulity'. "I don't understand how this can work, therefore God did it."

Snowflakes are a trivial example of spontaneous organization. They need nothing more than the molecular shape of water molecules and the right temperatures.

Would that be "arrogant" as in making unsupported claims as though they are the truth, followed by insulting others who dare to question your views, and using strawmen rather than actually responding to what the person had written?

why don't you tell me how and why things form out of nothing? Hypocrites

 

[Jan Ardena]

Actually it is sufficient to know only that it does not exist.

To know what doesn't exist?

if I lack something then it will not exist for me, although it may exist for other people.

Okay.

If something does not exist at all then it is necessarily true that it does not exist for anyone. Since "me" is a subset of "anyone", it is necessarily true that it therefore does not exist for me.
The other word for this is... lack.

I agree you lack belief in God. Ultimately God isn't existent, why you need external evidence to accept. But if God exists, and he does for me. Then either you are without God, or God doesn't actually exist. My question is, how can you ever know that God doesn't actually exist, while you are without Him?

Oh, boy. So now you're accepting that the meaning of theist is someone who believes that God exists, rather than your previous assertions that a theist is someone who believes in God, you being at pains to differentiate the two.
What's that word... Oh, yes: consistency.

What I meant was, obviously theists believe in God, so obviously God exists from a theist perspective. It's a no-brainer.

Thus it is quite correct, even using your limited application of the term "lack" to say that atheists lack belief that God exists

It is because you cannot perceive God, why you need evidence of His existence.
If you cannot perceive God, then there is nothing to believe in. You look for intellectual evidence, but find no joy there. So where is this God I hear you ask. The answer is, He is currently no where to be found.

If theists didn't believe in God the way atheists don't believe in God then the theist would be atheist, if indeed they would be called anything given that no one would believe in God

What I mean is that theist don't go looking out there for God. Atheists conclude that God doesn't exist because they cannot perceive Him. Theists conclude God is, because they can. That's just the way it is.

And now you are saying you don't have a belief that God exists

We have a belief in God which obviously includes His properties, such as existence. It's not a big to theists like it is with atheists.

It is a matter for the purposes of getting you to accept your error.
You have stated earlier in your post that you believe that God exists, because "obviously theists believe that God exists". So the belief exists. And it is this belief that the atheist lacks.

Okay for the benefit of moving on, we'll continue with we have a specific belief in God's existence. How does that suit you?

I have done no such thing. You have stated, quite clearly, that "obviously theists believe that God exists". I am simply using that. You have this belief which means it is something that people can lack. Such people are called atheist, and atheists lack belief that God exists

You obviously lack belief in God, because isn't there for you to believe in. Thus you are without God, just like it says on the tin.

Irrelevant. The purpose here is to show you that you are wrong when you say that atheists can not lack belief that God exists.

How can you lack a belief in something where the only idea you have of that thing is what other people have told you about. You can lack belief in concepts of God, but you don't actually know what God is, as you have never perceived Him, so how can you lack belief in Him, as opposed to what you've been told.?

You have belief that God (your concept) exists. The atheist lacks this belief that God (your concept) exists.

Yes, the atheist lacks belief in my concept. Not God. The atheist cannot currently perceive God, which is why he is atheist.

I think what you really want to say is, the atheist and the theist are exactly in the same boat, and the theist, only believe in a concept, not actually God, because you can't find evidence of Him. IOW my way is right and the theist way is wrong. That's really where you want to with this. Isn't it?

And before you go down the path of trying to claim that God is not a concept, a concept is simply whatever we mentally experience when we think of something, whether that thing actually exists or not. So no more of your semantic garbage, please.

Yes. I have a concept of God, but my concept is based upon God. Your concept is based on no God, through trying to shoot down mere concepts.

Atheists lack belief that God exists.

They cannot perceive God, so they don't know what to lack belief in. They lack belief in the concept of God.

For being wrong, despite your efforts to squirm out of realising such by filling the thread with semantic manure. For your inconsistencies. To those who think you have insulted them.
For starters.

If you think I'm wrong, the onus is on you to show that I am. So far you've failed miserably, and will continue to do so if you carry on down this road.

Please explain how I am insulting people.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

why don't you tell me how and why things form out of nothing? Hypocrites

How have I been hypocritical?
And I am not the one making a claim.
I don't profess to know what caused our universe to spring into existence, if indeed anything did cause it.
And why need there be a "why" rather than simply a "how"?
On what basis do you make your assertion?
The cosmological argument, perhaps, or some variant thereof?

 

[Sarkus]

If you think I'm wrong, the onus is on you to show that I am. So far you've failed miserably, and will continue to do so if you carry on down this road.

Nope, I give up, Jan. Everyone else knows you're wrong in this semantic matter. The only failure is in getting you to accept your error. But you won't, I know that now. You are blind to it, whether deliberately or not.

Please explain how I am insulting people.

And your inability to see how is also part of the problem.

 

[Oystein]

I can't wait until our US president is an avowed atheist and his/her vice president is a Muslim.

(I doubt if my grandchildren will see that.)