In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Was she trying to get rid of him by fixing you up with him???
She was trying to get rid of him.
Two weeks later she invited me to lunch ather flat, nice overlooking the river, but a girl friend turned up.
Whilst the first one was preparing lunch her girl frien and I started drinking and we hit it off, finally our hostess got ticked off and asked us to leave. The second one was so drunk that I parted and went my own way.
I prefer to live alone and cant handle girlie drama these days.
Alex
Atheist does not mean lack a belief in God, it means without God, and it is true, unless you want to add that you're not
IOW if you are without God, you are an atheist.
If you want to say that it is possible to lack belief in something that does not exist, then be my guess,
but it is a nonsense.
You mean like manifesting worlds?
Whenever I forget God, I'm an atheist, by original definition.
See above.
Okay let's wheel out the defs...
Lack; the state of being without or not having enough of something:
be without or deficient in:
Either you're without, not have enough of, or deficient in [the perception of], God.
Which is it?
Of course you're going to say you lack 'evidence' of, not have enough of, deficient in [evidence] God.
But I say you can't have evidence of something that does not exist, because God does not exist in your worldview as anything more than concept. One that is currently unavailable to you. So it is true you are without God, and the original definition has hit the nail squarely on the head.
Please explain how I am insulting you?
If that's your take on it, who am I to argue with you.
God can be anything you want it to be.
You rely on those defs because you don't have one, because God doesn't exist as far as you are aware.
Am I correct?
There's quite a bit on the internet.
Maybe I was being presumptuous. Are you satisfied that God exists? No?
I didn't think so.
I not talking about your thought process. I know that you are an atheist. I know that God can not possibly exist for you at this moment in time. I know that you are without God. And I know that the original meaning of the word 'atheist' is 'without God'. I accept that you lack evidence of God, but I know that's not why you are atheist. You are atheist because you are without God. How am I wrong, or insulting?
Why do they 'lack belief in God'? Lack of evidence?
Evidence of what? God?
You want evidence of the concepts of God, that you are told about.
If God is as defined in scripture, how are you going to determine what is evidence?
As you reject scripture, and pretty much argue everything away as not evidence (not sure how you would know), you've left yourself a little short on options. Of course that is if you are really interested in comprehending God.
As you currently stand, I won't hold my breath.
And by the way, I am perfectly happy to move on. Plus as I have stated before, I'm not interested in changing others views. I know from experience, that all experiences has to be experienced, to gain good knowledge (as oppose to info). I don't know anyone who believed in God because of outside evidence. They all come to realise God.
I think dictionaries portray the current mainstream uses of words. So yes, I accept that you lack a belief in God, and that you are an agnostic atheist, as far as you say you are. But I'm interested in why you are the way you are. The foundations that go to make up your worldview.
'Atheist' means literally 'without God'. You may not think that appropriate for your current state of mind, but it fits you because of what it literally means. You can't ever find evidence for something that does not exist.
They are, and always have been 'without God'.
If they are without God, then they are... ...atheist.
As brilliant as they were, they were a little bit barmy imo.
Ahh! Ad-homs. The last refuge of a defeated man.
jan.
QUOTE=Jan Ardena
"Atheist does not mean lack a belief in God"
Yeah it does.
"Atheist does not mean lack a belief in God"
Yeah it does.
Last edited:
Ahh! Thanks for allowing me to cope mate.
I think you've been conned mate.
Thanks for the backing mate.
Beaten by a bunch of people who can't accept the real reason why they lack belief in God?
I think you're going a little far there mate. Especially so soon after backing my argument.
I don't have to find proof that God exists.
Cheers mate?
Let the discussion continueuntil we are all totally giddy.
There are other threads you know.
No need to do yourself an injury.
jan.
You are being unduly forgiving of a basic dishonesty and bad faith.
That does not speak well for him.
Everybody's in denial except you. Right.
That's how you see it.
Why do I need to examine whether or not God exists?
How would you examine it?
If you say so James.
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Because you're hoping to argue that it's not merely a faith thing.
If God exists in your mind, then there's no need to examine whether it exists externally.
I'm OK with that if you are.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
To any rational person, objective evidence of God would be greeted with more enthusiasm than first contact with an alien species. We'd eat it up! Like any new knowledge about our universe. We crave knowledge.
Why do I need to argue that. I know what it is.
Unfortunately you don't.
Of course you're okay with that.
You're okay with anything that means you don't have to accept God.
jan.
A rational atheist, would simply accept God does not exist (as far as he is aware), and move on.
Not try to explain away everything, and reject scripture.
You're not interested in comprehending God.
jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't know. And yet you do.
But since you asked, I suspect its more about convincing yourself than about convincing anyone else.
I have as valid an understanding of God as you. There is as much evidence for my concept of God as there is for yours.
There are seven billion equally valid concepts.
Circular logic. Premise assumes the conclusion. Hallmark of a subjective mindset.
Which is OK. It just doesn't stand up objectively.
While all atheists are without God, not everyone without God is an atheist. This has been explained to you, examples given.
You are also committing a logical fallacy. By your argument because all dogs are supposed to have four legs, anything that is supposed to have four legs is a dog.
Jan, this has also been explained to you previously.
Firstly, if something does not exist then everyone necessarily lacks it. "Lack" in this regard simply means "does not have", that it is absent, non-existent etc. There is no requirement for there to be a possibility of having it, or for someone else to have it.
Secondly, even accepting your understanding of the term, one can lack belief in God, and lack belief that God exists. You are proof positive that belief in God exists, that belief in God's existence exists. Thus it is possible, via your own understanding of the word "lack" to lack that which others have. You have it: others don't. You have had this explained to you before.
So either way, Jan, you are wrong. But rather than address these points and/or acknowledge your mistake, you simply continue your mistake. That is disrespectful and insulting.
If you look at stellar nurseries over the course of a few million years or so, I'm sure you'd see stars and planets being formed. No God seems to be required for the creation of such worlds.
Anything else?
Oh, good grief. Your semantic bullshit knows no end.
There you were asserting previously that the reason we (atheists) require evidence is because we are "without God", and now you are asserting that you are an atheist whenever you "forget God". So how do you get from being an "atheist" to "theist"? Remember, you have previously concurred that atheism is not a choice, that if one is "without God" then one requires evidence. And now you seem to allow the flip-flopping between the two as though it is of no great import.
Consistency, Jan, please.
Lack of belief, Jan. We are without belief. That is what atheism refers to to, the ontological position with regard God's existence.
And as explained, by this logic you would refer to all animals that are supposed to have four legs as dogs.
Because you are obstinately refusing to listen. No matter who explains something to you, no matter how many times, you don't refute the actual argument or explanation they present but instead you ignore it and revert to the same argument that they have provided argument against. This is insulting, it is disrespectful, because you are doing it wilfully.
It was a question, Jan, looking for clarification from you. There was no "take on it" from me. I am trying to understands your take on it.
I have many definitions, but for none of them do I hold the belief that that definition of God actually exists. If someone wants to explain to me that God does exist, they need first to provide the definition they are working to, and we take it from there.
No, Jan, there really isn't. There is plenty of what people believe is evidence, but that is mostly just circular reasoning on their part: God exists and is the cause of all, therefore everything is evidence of God, etc.
Congrats, Jan, you've just admitted you're not surprised that an atheist isn't satisfied that God exists. Whodathunkit! And that's ignoring any implication of assertion in the question (through ambiguity) that God's existence is the actual state of affairs.
If all you mean is that I label myself atheist because I am without God, you are wrong. I label myself atheist because I lack belief that God exists.
You are correct that the lack of evidence for Gods existence is not directly what leads to my atheism. The lack of evidence leads to my agnosticism. And from my agnosticism stems my atheism: if I don't have evidence / knowledge (agnosticism) how can I believe (atheism). Some agnostics are believers, though, but I am not one of them.
It is insulting because you are not listening. You assert that you know why an atheist is an atheist, but all you can offer is why you think the label applies to them. It is insulting because your understanding of the label (modern) is flawed and yet despite repeatedly being told this you refuse to budge. It is insulting because these things are deliberate on your part.
....
Part 2....
Why they lack this belief is likely lack of evidence, yes, that they can rationally attribute to God's existence and not equally to the "no-God" alternative. I.e. it is a result of their agnosticism.
Consistency, please, Jan.
And if you are happy to move on, use the label of atheist as atheists use it: lack of belief that god(s) exist. To do otherwise is to continue to be disrespectful and insulting.
So, do you have a question, or was it simply a hollow statement on your part?
You deign to sum up the mindset of people you don't know from Adam, to put into 8 words the entire history of their relationship with the God they believed in, and think you are not insulting them, or me??? Seriously???
I sincerely hope you don't hold yourself out as any form of role-model for theism, Jan.
If you have nothing more than a simple hand-wave of a dismissal, why even bother replying?
I didn't say "lack belief in God" but rather "lack of belief that god(s) exist".
Why they lack this belief is likely lack of evidence, yes, that they can rationally attribute to God's existence and not equally to the "no-God" alternative. I.e. it is a result of their agnosticism.
It would be whatever it takes to remove that "If". Sure, IF God is as defined in scripture then everything is evidence of God. So provide evidence that removes that "if", not something that is only evidence once the conditional is assumed true.
I only reject scripture as being necessarily true. It may well be. But if the only evidence you can provide requires one to already accept that the scripture is true then it is simply circular reasoning. And you are a little short on options of providing anything else once you discount such fallacious reasoning.
Oh, I am interested, the same way that I may be interested in understanding any number of ideas and concepts. But "comprehending God" is not equivalent of "believing in God", although you seem to assert that it is, that one can not know unless one believes in God. And you wonder why I previously referred to your "believe to believe" cycle.
You mean other than the likes of your beloved Anthony Flew?
Consistency, please, Jan.
And if you are happy to move on, use the label of atheist as atheists use it: lack of belief that god(s) exist. To do otherwise is to continue to be disrespectful and insulting.
Great, then be decent enough to ask questions about it rather than simply asserting that you know, using terms in a different manner to everyone else, and dragging threads to their knees in an effort to save face.
So, do you have a question, or was it simply a hollow statement on your part?
Clearly it was a hollow statement. You have no real interest but instead just wish to assert as truth what you think you know.
And you still wonder how you are being insulting?
You deign to sum up the mindset of people you don't know from Adam, to put into 8 words the entire history of their relationship with the God they believed in, and think you are not insulting them, or me??? Seriously???
I sincerely hope you don't hold yourself out as any form of role-model for theism, Jan.
Yes, your opinion of the Ancient Greeks undoubtedly shares a high place in the pantheon of academia on the matter.
If you have nothing more than a simple hand-wave of a dismissal, why even bother replying?
There was no ad-hom, Jan, as there is no intent for it to stand in lieu of an argument against your position. I merely stated that your effort at a response was anticipated to be risible, and you didn't disappoint.
Rejecting scripture is part and parcel of accepting that God doesn't exist. Scripture is all about God, isn't it? I mean, apart from the bits that discuss verifiable historical events, myth, general moral principles and so on. The focus is God. If not that, then what?
Jan Ardena:
Suppose you believe there's a fairy in the room. I can't see it. Nobody else but you thinks it's there. Is it then "true for you" that there's a fairy in the room? Sounds to me like it is "true for you". But that's hardly the same as saying there actually, objectively, is a fairy in the room. "True for you" just isn't the same as plain, vanilla "True", however you slice and dice it.
One of us is wrong about God, Jan. And I don't think it's me.
It's a wonder that so many people avoid that special filter so easily to be "with God". It's almost as if being "without God" requires a special application of will. It's kind of admirable, don't you think?
Why do you engage in these discussions? What do you hope to achieve?
If you've got an actual point of view of your own, based on some piece of "scripture", then you're very welcome to post your analysis and discuss it in our "Religion" subforum.
As for "talking about the glories of God", I suppose you're referring to preaching and/or proselytising. We do have a ruleset about those things, and those are rules that the biblical cut-and-pastes often fall foul of.
This is a science forum, though. It's hard to see what "glories" would be available, other than things that we're already aware of in the natural world. And there's no problem with discussing those.
I still think you're struggling to separate the concept of objective existence from merely subjective existence.
Suppose you believe there's a fairy in the room. I can't see it. Nobody else but you thinks it's there. Is it then "true for you" that there's a fairy in the room? Sounds to me like it is "true for you". But that's hardly the same as saying there actually, objectively, is a fairy in the room. "True for you" just isn't the same as plain, vanilla "True", however you slice and dice it.
One of us is wrong about God, Jan. And I don't think it's me.
Suppose I were to tell you I see a fairy in the room with us. I point and say "Look! It's right there. You just need to open yourself to seeing it and you'll agree." But you see nothing. Wouldn't you conclude that it is more likely I am deluded than it is that you have a special kind of mental blindness and moral deficiency, whose primary symptoms are fairy-blindness?
The content of all of these threads are entertaining the idea of God. Otherwise it would just be "Meh. Nothing worth talking about there."
Because I care about capital-T Truth, and not just about "true for you" vs "true for me". And you have yet to acknowledge the difference between those two things. You regularly almost get there, but then you back-track again.
I'm referring to the meaning you take from the bible quote.
You believe in something which you have no rational grounds to believe in. Hence irrational.
You mean filtered through the fact that I am "without God", to put it in your terms.
It's a wonder that so many people avoid that special filter so easily to be "with God". It's almost as if being "without God" requires a special application of will. It's kind of admirable, don't you think?
Thank you.
Put it this way. You're not exactly sitting in a cave somewhere meditating privately on the majesty of the Almighty.
Why do you engage in these discussions? What do you hope to achieve?
Scripture isn't banned as a source of explanation. What we don't allow here is mindless cut-and-paste of large tracts of "scripture", such as long sections of biblical chapter and verse. Some religious types seem to think that the "word of God" is self-evident, in and of itself a source of meaning and authority. And a lot of them don't even understand it - they just mindlessly repeat it.
If you've got an actual point of view of your own, based on some piece of "scripture", then you're very welcome to post your analysis and discuss it in our "Religion" subforum.
As for "talking about the glories of God", I suppose you're referring to preaching and/or proselytising. We do have a ruleset about those things, and those are rules that the biblical cut-and-pastes often fall foul of.
This is a science forum, though. It's hard to see what "glories" would be available, other than things that we're already aware of in the natural world. And there's no problem with discussing those.
Belief that God exists is a prerequisite for belief in God, in the sense you use that term. It would be impossible for somebody to "believe in" God and to simultaneously believe that God doesn't exist.
Probably does not exist.
You have to unlearn the science and philosophy to believe in God in the absence of evidence. And that's hard to do. You have to replace science and philosophy with religious faith, or at least hold onto a kind of cognitive dissonance between them. Far easier not to learn science and philosophy in the first place, and just start with the faith.
If you accept God without evidence at the start, it is a short step to finding God everywhere there is a lack of evidence.
Or you imagine you do.
I think that when it comes to God you're consistently failing to make the distinction between subjective existence "for me" or "for you", as opposed to objective existence. Either that, or the matter of objective existence really is irrelevant to your belief.
What does it mean to live your life without God? It's hard to avoid (the concept of) God, even if you don't believe in (the reality of) God. And you're the one who keeps insisting that I wouldn't be able to be the atheist I am without God.
We've already been through that, I think. They say "knowing" something requires justified, true belief. You can belief that God is exists all you want, but if you can't justify that belief you can't know it. This recipe requires rational justification, of course.
Of course. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that's what I think and did something other than lived my life that way, would I not?
You call it waffle because for you, your belief in God does mean that God exists. You admit no possibility that you could believe in God and yet have it turn out that God doesn't exist, making your heartfelt belief mistaken. You couldn't bring yourself to write "God might not exist. I might be wrong." The thought doesn't occur to you - or you won't let allow that thought to bubble in your mind.
I think I can understand it. Since your belief is, at its foundation, not rational, ultimately it is an internal impulse that comes from you, based on irrational assumptions you make about the world. That's not how you see it, of course. You believe the impulse is external, from God. Or both, because you consider yourself a "manifestation" of God. Whichever way it goes, you believe you "just know" stuff because God.
Must have been the direct word of God, eh? Shakespeare be damned; no human can ever say deep, powerful stuff.
Interesting. Redemption from what?
Saying "God Is" is starting by assuming what you need to prove, or at least make a rational argument for.