In regards to atheism.

[sideshowbob]

Can you explain what type of evidence would convince you of God's existence?

I require the same ID from God as I require from the guy who reads the gas meter. If He can convince the government that He is who He says He is and they issue Him with picture ID, I'll be a theist.

 

[Sarkus]

More like you use your point of view (atheist) to argue 'I cannot see God, therefore God does not exist' ....

Except that's not what most atheists argue. You know that as you have been told countless times.

... and translate that as 'lack of evidence for God' s existence.

There is no translation required.

Can you explain what type of evidence would convince you of God's existence?

Anything that can only be attributable to God. I can not be any more specific than that.

No. That atheists are atheists, and are so because of what it says on the label.

And the modern label, which you refuse to accept, is "lacks belief in God". Instead you try to peel off that label and revert to the old/original meaning, and in doing so as obstinately as you do is insulting to anyone trying to have a discussion with you.

He can believe there is no God, but it is not due to lack of evidence. It is due to the fact that he is an atheist.

Yes, just like an orange is an orange for the simple reason that it bears the label of "orange".
Do you not see that the label has no causal efficacy. You are asserting that it does.
Alex may be an atheist for any number of reasons, true, but most likely it is due to the lack of evidence he sees for God. That the label of atheist can be applied to him is simply because he lacks belief in the existence of God. That label itself is not the cause of anything. It really is just a label that describes a position held regarding lack of a specific belief.

I see no difference between you and Alex, other than the waffle.

And I rarely see a difference between you and a brick wall, such is the number of times things have to be explained to you and the number of times you simply ignore them.

'Atheist' means without God. Both you and Alex are without God. How is it I lack understanding?

Because, as explained almost ad nauseam, you are using the old meaning of the word. You fail to grasp, despite being given examples, of how your understanding can actually apply to those that believe God to exist. The modern usage is simply a label for those who lack the belief that God exists.
By definition all atheists (modern usage) are "without God" (original usage) but - and here is where you lack understanding of your position - not everyone "without God" (original usage) are atheist (modern usage).

Get it yet?
No, I doubt you have, and so the cycle continues.
Sigh.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Initially you tried to avoid addressing the whole "true for me" vs "true for you" problem. I imagine a kind of mental struggle with yourself there

Not really.
You're without God, hence you have no perception. As far as your concerned there is no God. That is true for you. But it's not true for me.

You will go as far as to say I am deluded, or accuse of wilfully wanting that warm fuzzy feeling theists crave. You will, in no way, entertain the idea of God. Why? Because He does not exist, as far as you can perceive. It is true, for you, that right now God doesn't exist. And it is true for me, right now that God is.
I'm prepared to accept that. Why can't you?

It appears that we've reached the point in our discussions where you have, in effect, admitted that belief in God is irrational. It is a matter of the "heart" rather than the "mind". And the reason why people such as myself are atheists, according to you is that our "hearts" are wrong.

Are you referring to the Bible quote?
Why make out that is my idea? Although it certainly makes a lot of sense when apply the original meaning of the word 'atheist', to assess the atheist. I don't just mean professed atheists, but so called theists as well.

I accept that belief in God, is irrational from your pov, because it is as though we believe in something that is not there. But if we apply 'atheist' to your pov , we understand that you are without God, and is currently incapable of such perception

What it all boils down to, as far as I can tell, is that you'd advise anybody looking for God to just earnestly want to believe, for no rational reason.

Here's the problem. There is nothing anyone can say or do, regarding God, or His existence, without it being filtered through your title. How you just condensed what I said, to mean that, is a perfect example. I imagine Anthony Flew was the same when he was 'without' God.

Statistically speaking, I am perverse. Very much so.

I respect your honesty (you didn't need to involve the atheist community). I think we're all perverse, because we don't know the absolute truth, and make mistakes.

On the other hand, I think you, personally, might have a greater chance of successfully converting somebody like me if you would be open and honest about your own beliefs. I know that in a place like sciforums you are understandably worried about opening yourself to personal attacks and criticism for your beliefs, so I understand why you are so closed

What makes you think I want to convert people?
Beliefs aren't important here. This has been made clear by banning using scripture as a source of explanation, or talking about the glories of God.
The fact is, you don't want to hear about God. You want us to physically show you God. When we can't do that, you feel justified in being without God.

I don't tend to think with my heart. I use my brain for that.

So you believe.

I know, I know. You're going to tell me that I should let my heart rule and just believe, like you do. But why? What would be the good of that?

It's comments like this that take the joy out of our discussions.

You presume to be a cipher. Rather than being open about what you believe and why you believe it,

I am being open. I've told you that I believe in God.
When we can get passed 'existence' we may be able to move on to real topics of God, and belief. But until then it is pointless, as it is all the same to you.

Nevertheless, from what you've written from time to time I have some idea about your religious beliefs. You're a "build your own" kind of guy. You've chosen a selection of your favorite "scriptures" and cobbled them together into something that makes sense for you. But you'd rather not test your ideas against anybody else's, atheist or theist, because you probably fear they might find fault in them. Your religion is a private religion, as far as I can tell; a religion of just one person.

That's how you see it. Fair enough.

But you're right. We needn't discuss it, and I doubt we ever will.

You don't even know if I have discussed anything about my belief or not. Because God does not exist for you. Your standard is 'physically show me God, and I will accept He exists'. Because your starting point is 'I can't see God, therefore He does not exist.

You cannot get away from that, no matter what you learn in science, or philosophy.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I require the same ID from God as I require from the guy who reads the gas meter. If He can convince the government that He is who He says He is and they issue Him with picture ID, I'll be a theist.

I appreciate your honesty.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Except that's not what most atheists argue. You know that as you have been told countless times.

That's what it boils down to.
What else could it be?

Anything that can only be attributable to God. I can not be any more specific than that

So you need to comprehend God, in order to be able to identify that the evidence is evidence of God.
How can you know what God is, if you are without God?

And the modern label, which you refuse to accept, is "lacks belief in God". Instead you try to peel off that label and revert to the old/original meaning, and in doing so as obstinately as you do is insulting to anyone trying to have a discussion with you.

I accept that you lack evidence for God, but that is not the root cause for atheism. That is, for the most part, a sound byte, that covers over the fact that you're without God.

Yes, just like an orange is an orange for the simple reason that it bears the label of "orange".

No.
An atheist is an atheist because he is without God.
The atheist accept his position. What he does from there is his business.

Alex may be an atheist for any number of reasons, true, but most likely it is due to the lack of evidence he sees for God.

God doesn't exist for Alex, period.
He may use buzz words like lack of of evidence. But that is in relation concepts of God. It is no different with you. How many discussions have we had, where you rely on my definition of God to work with?
That is because you don't have a definition of God, only what is laid out by others for you.

You will claim that concepts of God have no evidence to back them. But up until now you have not put forward the reality of God, as set out in scriptures, as a basis for discussion, seeing as you are not satisfied with others concepts.

This is because you don't recognise God, because God doesn't exist as far as you can see.

And I rarely see a difference between you and a brick wall, such is the number of times things have to be explained to you and the number of times you simply ignore them.

Works both ways, Sarkus.
You think that because you say something like "atheist means one who has a lack of evidence", and "it is the modern way", I should accept it as the way it is.
Well, I keep telling you, that's not what "atheist" means, based on the original meaning, years of engaging atheists in discussions, and reading and viewing countless debates and discussions between atheist and theist, from all walks of life. It's like talking to Brickhill.

and here is where you lack understanding of your position - not everyone "without God" (original usage) are atheist (modern usage).

Show me a theist who claims to be an atheist.
Or if you don't like that wording, show me a theist who is without God?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The "gods" are "manifestations" of "God", you say. Do you not?
And so are human beings.
And so is everything else.

It's a kind of pan-theism.

Pantheist's simply accept an aspect of God. But yes, as stated in any scripture,
God is the transcendental origin of all manifestations.

You don't want to have that discussion.

I don't mind having one, if we can do so intelligently.

What are God's manifestations? The world? The universe? I don't see those as revelations of God, and I think I have basic human intelligence.

Others do.

Do you believe that each individual creates his own reality

I agree that we perceive life and reality differently. For example you don't perceive God, and I do.

Do you exist only because I believe you exist? Would you cease to exist if I stopped believing in your existence? Note: not cease to exist for me, but cease to exist, period. Because that's the distinction I'm talking about here.

Would I cease to exist, period, if you believed I didn't exist? No.

Because that's the distinction I'm talking about here.

Do you think I'm making that distinction?

The "probably" has to do with what can and can't be known.

It's not practical.
If you live your life without God, then you are without God, regardless of what you may think.

We disagree that you (or I) can know that God exists, for certain. You think you know that. I think you don't, and probably can't.

I know that's what you think, as you're an atheist. But I would like to know why you think that.

I think that God probably doesn't exist, but I don't claim to know

Is that how you live your life?

I have stated that I do not believe that God exists. I lack your belief in God. I am quite happy to accept that my lack of belief does not mean that God does not exist. God might exist and I might be wrong.

That doesn't mean anything James.
It's simply waffle.

You, on the other hand, have convinced yourself that God exists and you take it as a "given", even though it is something you cannot know. And you admit no possibility that you might be wrong.

You don't know how it is I believe in God. You can only assume it's something that you can perceive or comprehend. IOW you are using your perspective (atheist) to conclude how I came to my conclusion.
Let me tell you. It's weak.

Then God, if he exists, is deficient in failing to provide me with any way of knowing. He should have done a better job if he wanted me to believe in him.

It's perfectly understandable why you could, or would see it that way. After all God doesn't exist, but if He did (stick in a concept), why would He make it so that some can perceive Him and some can't. Isn't it a terrible God that would do something like that" Then we trundle off down the "God and evil" discussion, wasting time.

Think how you like, it changes nothing.

I do wonder, though. Are you asserting some kind of moral deficiency in me that makes me incapable of appreciating the wonder of God's existence? It sounds like you're suggesting some kind of "bad faith" on my part, or lack of moral fortitude.

No. I'm thinking about the Bible verse. How something so deep, and powerful could summed up in so few words.

I've said it before, we're all perverse to some degree or other. Being a theist does above you from transgressions, and general wrong doing. It simply means that you accept God, and believe in Him.
It offers you a real chance of redemption.
But only the individual can make that choice.

So, there isn't existence for me vs existence for you. Right? Either God exists for both of us, or he doesn't. What we believe about that existence is secondary.

It's simple James...

God Is.
Atheist is without God
Theist is believing in God.

It's not only true, but it is remarkably simple.
Every human being passed a certain age can comprehend that.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

That's what it boils down to.
What else could it be?

How about simply not having the belief that God exists. Where in there is the explicit assertion/belief that God does not exist? Oh, wait, there isn't one.

So you need to comprehend God, in order to be able to identify that the evidence is evidence of God.
How can you know what God is, if you are without God?

How can you know what an orange is if you are without an orange.

I accept that you lack evidence for God, but that is not the root cause for atheism.

So insists the person who isn't an atheist.

That is, for the most part, a sound byte, that covers over the fact that you're without God.

"Sound bite".
And as explained, you confuse your definition of the label with cause, and it is not the modern meaning of the label.

No.
An atheist is an atheist because he is without God.

So asserts the the person who isn't an atheist.

The atheist accept his position. What he does from there is his business.

And his position is a lack of belief that God exists. It's really no more difficult than that. You seem to have an agenda here, Jan. It's rather insulting.

God doesn't exist for Alex, period.

So you're back to God being wholly subjective?

He may use buzz words like lack of of evidence. But that is in relation concepts of God. It is no different with you. How many discussions have we had, where you rely on my definition of God to work with?
That is because you don't have a definition of God, only what is laid out by others for you.

I rely on the definition of those claiming that God exists to ensure that the discussion is not side-tracked by subsequent disputes over the definition.
In such discussions those who claim God exists have the onus to provide the definition and then the proof of the reality of that definition.

You will claim that concepts of God have no evidence to back them.

No evidence that exclusively supports the notion of God's existence that does not equally support the notion of God's non-existence. You have some?

But up until now you have not put forward the reality of God, as set out in scriptures, as a basis for discussion, seeing as you are not satisfied with others concepts.

And how are you judging me being "not satisfied with others concepts"? Not believing that their concept actually exists??

This is because you don't recognise God, because God doesn't exist as far as you can see.

No, once again you are back to front on it. You've been told that. You simply refuse to accept it, thinking you know atheists' thought processes better than they do. I'd like to say the arrogance is also insulting but I know it won't stop you.

Works both ways, Sarkus.
You think that because you say something like "atheist means one who has a lack of evidence", and "it is the modern way", I should accept it as the way it is.

Not just me, but almost every dictionary you care to look at. Fine, you want to recapture the original intention, I get it. Yet even in that you can't fully accept what the original meaning was. But even then you have to respect the meaning that those that apply the label to themselves intend. To do otherwise is disrespectful. To do as you are doing is, with your obstinacy, is insulting.

Well, I keep telling you, that's not what "atheist" means, based on the original meaning, years of engaging atheists in discussions, and reading and viewing countless debates and discussions between atheist and theist, from all walks of life.

That is what atheist means, Jan. Every atheist will indeed be different in their nuanced take on the matter, but the one thing they all have in common, the one thing that links them as being atheist, is their lack of belief that god(s) exist.
Either accept that, or accept that you're just not going to change peoples' views on it and move on.

It's like talking to Brickhill.

Whoever he/she is.

Show me a theist who claims to be an atheist.
Or if you don't like that wording, show me a theist who is without God?

I've unfortunately known a few in my time: people at the end of their tether, unable to reconcile their belief that God exists with what they have witnessed, and thus wanting nothing to do with God. Alas I can no longer introduce you to them.
In ancient Greece, with the pantheon of gods, believers in one deity would refer to those who didn't share their beliefs as being atheist, even if those people believed in other gods. I can not show you those people either.

It should be enough that it is possible in principle to be a theist who is "without God" (the original meaning of the term atheist).
I await your risible effort at refutation.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see no difference between you and Alex, other than the waffle.

Many of us don't go so far, but our positions are reasonably consistent on being the result of the lack of evidence.

That's because you are without atheism. You unable to conceive of atheism from an atheist viewpoint.
All you have to do is not believe!

'Atheist' means without God. Both you and Alex are without God. How is it I lack understanding?

Still claiming that being 'without x' is an implication that 'x' exists?
This argument has been refuted - with examples.
In case you need a reminder, I am without purple tentacle horns. That does not imply PTHs exist.

Move on, or stand revealed as having run out of valid arguments.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Once again, thanks.

You are welcome Jan.
I find it most enjoyable observing the unwinable arguement.
I doubt if my input really helps or detracts from either sides position.
You mention evidence of God rather than me search the net could I ask you to outline what you regard as evidence.
I am interested in your view upon this and I promise I wont reject what you offer I simply am interested in how you view things.
I havecome to realise no ones views will change but I am interested to get a picture of how others view matters that is all there is behind my question.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

TO ALL

The next is not my idea but from a chat discussion Quora

Live a good life.

If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I think that sums up my feelings

 

[Oystein]

Live a good life.

If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I like that. It is very close to what I always say: "The reward for living a good life is that good life that you lived." I think it may be from the novel by W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor's Edge.

 

[DaveC426913]

TO ALL

The next is not my idea but from a chat discussion Quora

Live a good life.

If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.

If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I think that sums up my feelings

Agree.
And it nicely covers the atheist philosophy:

Be a good person - for no other reason than because you wish to be a good person.

 

[Michael 345]

Well, I keep telling you, that's not what "atheist" means, based on the original meaning,

And the modern label, which you refuse to accept, is "lacks belief in God". Instead you try to peel off that label and revert to the old/original meaning, and in doing so as obstinately as you do is insulting to anyone trying to have a discussion with you.

The above post (these are not the only post and not the only posters) appear to be invoking Humpty Dumpty method

To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.

6. Humpty Dumpty
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
Via

http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

Unfortunately Humpty Dumpty seems to require you accept only one definition (in this case his)

When used in a discussion in which the subject matter is nothing to do with words and there is a massive disconnect on the subject matter I am very dubious any discussion about the definetion of a word would clarify the subject matter under discussion

Concentrate on the matter not the word

 

[iceaura]

When used in a discussion in which the subject matter is nothing to do with words and there is a massive disconnect on the subject matter I am very dubious any discussion about the definetion of a word would clarify the subject matter under discussion

It's not a disconnect, it's a denial. Ardena insists on denying the nature of other people's beliefs, as well as his own. And so he demands that atheistic people discuss atheism according to his view of their beliefs, in which he is in error.

And in this play-play world of make believe, his own beliefs are not his and justified by his thinking, but self-justifying and external to his thinking or anything else that could be wrong, and thereby immune to reason or consideration - he refuses to answer to reason, on the grounds that reason does not apply to certain of his thoughts, on the grounds that they are not his thoughts but rather perceptions of a reality apart from his thinking. Since this refusal cannot be defended in other people's terms, he denies their terms. Since he cannot both deny their terms and answer to the reasoning they express with them, he misrepresents their reasoning. This is of course dishonest and unethical, but his only alternative would be to answer to reason - back to square one.

 

[Michael 345]

It's not a disconnect, it's a denial. Ardena insists on denying the nature of other people's beliefs, as well as his own. And so he demands that atheistic people discuss atheism according to his view of their beliefs, in which he is in error.

And in this play-play world of make believe, his own beliefs are not his and justified by his thinking, but self-justifying and external to his thinking or anything else that could be wrong, and thereby immune to reason or consideration - he refuses to answer to reason, on the grounds that reason does not apply to certain of his thoughts, on the grounds that they are not his thoughts but rather perceptions of a reality apart from his thinking. Since this refusal cannot be defended in other people's terms, he denies their terms. Since he cannot both deny their terms and answer to the reasoning they express with them, he misrepresents their reasoning. This is of course dishonest and unethical, but his only alternative would be to answer to reason - back to square one.

Disconnect / denial

I can live with that

I won't speak on Humpty Dumptys behalf

 

[Sarkus]

You are welcome Jan.
I find it most enjoyable observing the unwinable arguement.
I doubt if my input really helps or detracts from either sides position.
You mention evidence of God rather than me search the net could I ask you to outline what you regard as evidence.
I am interested in your view upon this and I promise I wont reject what you offer I simply am interested in how you view things.
I havecome to realise no ones views will change but I am interested to get a picture of how others view matters that is all there is behind my question.
Alex

If one believes God to be the cause of all, as Jan does, then everything is evidence of God's existence, for without the God that one believes in then there would be nothing, or so he believes. Which is why Jan can't comprehend the possibility of God not actually existing... because then nothing would exist, so an alternative theory simply isn't possible, because things do exist.
Jan can't seem to understand why others don't accept this, and uses the catch-all explanation that such people are "without God", because surely if you are "with God" you believe in God and thus everything is evidence.
And why does Jan believe that God is the cause of all? Well, because scripture says so. And surely scripture can't be incorrect because it is the revelation of God, which scripture explains. Oh, and how could our ancient ancestors know so much that is in the scriptures without such revelation, which clearly shows scripture to be what it claims to be.

Etc.

Meh, maybe I am being unduly harsh. Let's wait and see.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan can't seem to understand why others don't accept this, and uses the catch-all explanation that such people are "without God", because surely if you are "with God" you believe in God and thus everything is evidence.

If it makes him happy and able to cope let him enjoy, what I would call, his fantasy, what he will see as reality.

He, in my belief has been conned and for him to even come close to that realisation would be unbearable I suspect. Good on him if he can hold fast and argue as best he is able.

It does not worry me what he wants to believe although I do find it hard to accept someone of Jans ability cant work out that reliance on supertitious made up stories is proba ly pushing faith to unrealistic limits.

But he would not be alone.

He can think whatever he wants and say I am without God or others same, but the fact remains that God is absent, non existent, by any reasonable definition.

And he provides great entertainment by never conceding he has been beaten.
I respect that he stands by his belief even though keeping such somewhat a mystery.
I stand by my belief without ever yielding and I think Jan does similar.
Few can or will admit they are or could be wrong.

If Jan has found proof that God exists that satisfies him I say good luck to him.

He is often accused of being less than honest but I doubt if Jan does so with a guilty mind, if he does he is the only one that has to live with same.

We are all different, we all grew up with different influences and so we will all end up with different beliefs.

I think you made probably a reasonable observation of how Jan approaches things but of course he may not hold a similar view about himself.

How we see ourselves is not always how others see us. For a long time I saw myself as most passive and it came as a great shock that others regarded me as aggressive and domineering.
Others saw the bad moments that I wrote off as minor happenings but I finally realised why folk saw me opposite to the way I saw myself.

Jan contributes as best he can in his way and gives us all something to chew upon. So there is no need for us to be harsh.

Let the discussion continue until we are all totally giddy.
Alex[/QUOTE]

 

[Michael 345]

How we see ourselves is not always how others see us

How true

I see me as the light one

Girlfriend sees me as the dark one

I like my version better

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Girlfriend sees me as the dark one

You have a girlfriend who can see????
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I was doing well with a lady at the pub, she invited me to dinner, I accepted and I got to meet her boyfriend.
Alex