In regards to atheism.

[iceaura]

"If everything is evidence of God, then God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis."
That's how you see it.

The conclusions of valid logical deduction are not opinions, that depend on how one "sees" things - unless of course logic itself is a matter of contingent adoption, something one can invoke or deny with equivalent implications in a discussion.

Your God is (among other things) an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You've made the claim yourself.

You're not interested in comprehending God.

You keep talking about your God, but leaving out the "your" part. What people are not interested in, if they aren't (it's a false claim), is your God, and possibly any God in the same category as yours.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The conclusions of valid logical deduction are not opinions, that depend on how one "sees" things - unless of course logic itself is a matter of contingent adoption, something one can invoke or deny with equivalent implications in a discussion.

If you believe that logic is beyond God, then you have drawn a conclusion from your own perspective (without God). Hence, that is how you see it.

Your God is (among other things) an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You've made the claim yourself.

You mean ''your God'', which is nothing but a concept. God IS. Didn't you read that part? Or are you simply being obstinate.

You keep talking about your God, but leaving out the "your" part.

You say God is my God, because you have no concept of God, which is why you're atheist.
If you want to discuss God, I'll be right here.

What people are not interested in, if they aren't (it's a false claim), is your God, and possibly any God in the same category as yours.

You're an atheist, and by definition you are without God, and is evidenced by your comprehension.
Go learn about God, then we'll discuss.

jan.

 

[Randwolf]

You're an atheist, and by definition you are without God, and is evidenced by your comprehension.
Go learn about God, then we'll discuss.

I see - you only wish to discuss God with theists.

If someone learns about God they would begin to comprehend - in which case they would no longer be without God and hence cease being atheist, therefore becoming theist. Nice, Jan...

 

[iceaura]

If you believe that logic is beyond God, then you have drawn a conclusion from your own perspective (without God).

Much is "beyond" logic, including all of the arts, rhetoric, and mathematics. You don't have to break out a deity to get "beyond" logic.

Meanwhile, a world of hierarchy as your argument presupposes, in which everything is ordered in ranks of that kind as part of its essential nature, is your personal hell - I don't share it.

Logic itself is not contravened in its role, or made invalid in its operations, by any conception of yours whatsoever - whether "beyond" logic or not.

You say God is my God, because you have no concept of God, which is why you're atheist.

But you do have a concept of God, and it differs from other people's concepts of God in visible ways.

That other people do understand your God, that your concept of God in fact shares some limitations of your own understanding which are visible to other people, may be difficult for you to admit. But such routine and common failure to admit it becomes a threat when it acquires the backing of political power, and the people imagining they have a God beyond all miscomprehension turn to speaking for this God, and telling others what the will of this God that cannot be contradicted is.

Meanwhile, you have yourself, right here, made the claim that your God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So other people should be able to agree with you in that without you objecting.

 

[DaveC426913]

You mean ''your God'', which is nothing but a concept.

Perfect. Now show how yours is something more than just a concept.

you have no concept of God

This is demonstrably false, as you well know.
Each of us has a concept of God. it's just different from your concept of God.

Each of us has a concept of purple tentacle horns too.

God IS.

Norman coordinate. Norman coordinate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

While some may feel better calling their dog 'a pooch', or, 'my little guy/gal' because they don't like the idea of calling it ''a dog'', it is still a dog. You are an atheist, not because you lack evidence in God's existence, or you lack belief in God, and/or gods. You are atheist because you are without God. Your many varied explanations and reasonings show why you are atheist.

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.

The only time we can lack something that doesn't exist is if it did exist at one point, but ceased to exist.
You bake some tarts, and couple of your mates eat them, while waiting for you to come off the phone. You come back and they aren't there. They don't exist anymore. Hence you are without something that does not exist. But you cannot be without something that does not exist at all. I use the word ''something'' merely to give the idea of something rather than nothing. But in reality we cannot title it something, as it does not exist.

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.

Yes. But you can't lack something that does not exist, or never have existed, simply because you don't know what does not exist. You lack belief in concepts of God, not God. You do not accept that God IS, but you can't perceive Him. Do you?
So God does not exist, period. Any God you lack belief in the existence of, are mere concepts, or explanations made by people who cannot convince you that God IS.

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?

I accept that is how you see it. But remember, you are without God, and as such will never see God in anything. This is why you need to be convinced. Being convinced by others does not mean you will accept God. That's not how it works.

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".

You're confused Sarkus. Being without God, does not mean that God does not exist. It means that you do not perceive God, and live your life as though God doesn't exist. As an atheist, who as thought about it, you live your life constantly as though God doesn't exist, because for you, He doesn't.


If someone is totally blind, it does not mean that that which he/she cannot see, does not exist. It means they can't visually perceive it. If someone is partially sighted, it doesn't mean the world is as it appears, in sight. If someone is temporarily blinded (bright light flash directly in front of eyes), then for a while it seems the world has disappeared, but as time flows by, and the sight starts to begins it's restoration. All is well, once again. If that last episode, caused damage to the eye, and it takes more time for the damage to repair. Then each day that goes by, the reality of seeing fades a little, and your left with memories of how it was to see. Over time these memories start to become distorted with the reality you are currently in. Over time, what it was like to see, can become a distant memory. Especially if you have learned how to be happy in the blind position.

So how do you get from being an "atheist" to "theist"?

You mean how do you get from being without God, to realisation of God?
I think that depends on the individual.
I'm glad you asked this because this is why I brought Anthony Flew into the discussion. He was very similar to you, but realised. He obviously had to explain this change to the likes of his former like-minded, collegues, followers, and fans, in a way that they can understand. Obviously, the moment he explains, it becomes another concept, to the likes of other atheists. They immediately look for reasons to rubbish his concept, and go about their merry ways. So obviously, realising God, is not done through convincing arguments, or listening to others experiences. That is not to say that they do no help in your realisation.

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.

I've told you that 'atheist' is without God.
The atheist is the one who requires evidence, because he cannot perceive God.
At any moment in time, if I forget God, and act out of my own free will, then at that point I am an atheist.

If someone flashes a bright light directly into you eyes, and you can't see the world around you as it is. Then at that moment you are blind.

Lack of belief, Jan. We are without belief. That is what atheism refers to to, the ontological position with regard God's existence.

Of course you are without belief. You can't believe in something that does not exist, because what it is you are to believe in. You lack belief in concepts, because no matter what experience someone informs you of, unless you have had the same, or similar experience, it is only a concept.

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.

I haven't ignored anything. Plus my comprehension of atheist, does not violate your comprehension. Being without God, is your exact position, and you cannot deny it. Even the word you choose ''lack'', explains that you are without.

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.

My bad. You do have definitions and concepts (based on other people's concepts and definitions). The thing is, you rely on those definitions and concepts to determine whether or not God exists.

Someone, who is without love, can easily conclude that love is just imaginary concept, that it really doesn't exist, and those who do believe in it, are deluded, or needy (fuzzy warm feelings that JamesR likes), and unable to face the real world alone, etc... And there would be nothing you can say to change that persons mind into accept love a real. That person has to experience it. That person is you, with regards to God.

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.

Yes I accept your own label, but the original label is the underlying meaning, which is undeniable.
So if I work with the original label, it automatically incorporates your own label. But your own label is frought with ambiguity, without the original label.

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.

Am I correct that you are wthout God, and currently God does not exist for you?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

Despite your agnosticism you are still without God.
You believe one can not know God, because there is no evidence for God.
There is a lack of evidence for God, because you are without God.
That you need evidence for God, shows that the concept of God you are prepared to accept, should evidence be brought forward, isn't God.

It would be whatever it takes to remove that "If".

Only you can remove that if.
Only you can choose to accept that what you know, isn't enough to realise God.
You may convince yourself that the universe manifestation does not need God to be manifest.
But that is based on your own thinking. That's what it means to be without God.
Some may look upon that as, the theist cannot think for himself. But that is demonstrably not true, as many of the great thinkers were people who believe(d) in God.

When you say ''show me the evidence'' and I will accept God as a reality, you are basically putting yourself in the position of God. By this I mean that you believe you are separate from God (should He exist), and you will decide whether or not God is worthy of being worshipped. Based on the criteria of your choice.
This viewpoint is the very thing that stops you from perceiving God.

I only reject scripture as being necessarily true. It may well be.

And that is the one source where you can learn about what, even who God is.
You reject that, and rely on human concepts (whether true or false). This puts you further away from the possibility of realising God.

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're right. Comprehending God is not the same as believing in God, or believing that God exists, anymore than comprehding darwinian evolution is the same as believing it to be true, or that it is an actual phenomenon. But in both cases it strengthens your ability to make the right decisions regarding the reality of the particular issue at hand.

Clearly it was a hollow statement. You have no real interest but instead just wish to assert as truth what you think you know.

What is hollow about it?

And you still wonder how you are being insulting?

How is that insulting?
Is it insulting to say that a person who does not have sight, is a blind person?
''Blind'' can be used in a derogartory way, but it is not derogatory if used as the original meaning was intended.
If God Is, but people use their own concept of God to believe in. Then they are without God, meaning they are atheist.
They may have thought, like you, that God is a concept, and (unlike you) my concept is the right one (religious). Or if I follow what this person/religion says, I will find happiness and peace. This relates to a concept of God they hold in their minds. This goes a long way in explaining why people are falling away from religion, they have become disillusioned. Children still die of disease, evil is rampant in the world, through wars, rape, murder, torture, etc... If (my concept) of God was real, He would not allow this to happen.
The reality is they don't comprehend God, and their lack of comprehension is not due to a lack of intellect, wisdom, or character. They lack comprehension because they are without God, and have nothing to comprehend.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If someone learns about God they would begin to comprehend - in which case they would no longer be without God and hence cease being atheist, therefore becoming theist. Nice, Jan...

That's not what I said, or meant. Quit putting words into my mouth.
At least we will be able to discuss God, rather than examining he say's, she say's.
That's what scriputres are for.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

While some may feel better calling their dog 'a pooch', or, 'my little guy/gal' because they don't like the idea of calling it ''a dog'', it is still a dog.

So you think all things that are supposed to have four legs are dogs??? That is what your logic is suggesting, Jan.

You are an atheist, not because you lack evidence in God's existence, or you lack belief in God, and/or gods. You are atheist because you are without God. Your many varied explanations and reasonings show why you are atheist.

Incorrect. I am an atheist because I lack belief that god(s) exist. That is what defines an atheist. You may wish to assert that the reason I lack belief that god(s) exist is because I am "without God" but since people can be "without God" who yet still believe that god(s) exist, you are left thinking all things that are supposed to have four legs are dogs.

The only time we can lack something that doesn't exist is if it did exist at one point, but ceased to exist.

First your understanding of the term is utter crud: to lack is simply to not have.
Second, what I lack is belief that god(s) exist. You have that belief, therefore it (the belief) exists (at least for some people) and thus it is possible for me to lack it.
So while your understanding of the term "lack" is flawed, even using your restrictive definition you are still in error.

You bake some tarts, and couple of your mates eat them, while waiting for you to come off the phone. You come back and they aren't there. They don't exist anymore. Hence you are without something that does not exist. But you cannot be without something that does not exist at all. I use the word ''something'' merely to give the idea of something rather than nothing. But in reality we cannot title it something, as it does not exist.

You have belief that god(s) exist, just as the people have the tarts I cooked. You have belief that god(s) exist and I lack that belief.
That's using your incorrect restrictive definition of "lack" yet it still results in being able to lack belief that god(s) exist.
QED. Deal with it and move on, Jan. You have been proven wrong in this regard (and this is only reiterating what you have been told before) so any further argument on this matter, without you offering something new, can only be considered deliberate trolling.

Yes. But you can't lack something that does not exist, or never have existed, simply because you don't know what does not exist. You lack belief in concepts of God, not God.

It does exist, Jan. You have it therefore it (the belief) must exist. I don't have it, yet you do. Therefore I lack it.
I know what belief in the existence of god(s) is, Jan. I don't need to know what God is or is not to know what belief in the existence of it is. Sure, I may need to know if I want to actually hold that belief but if, by your own admission, I do not know what God is then I can not have belief in the existence of God and thus I must lack belief that God exists.
Simples, really, Jan.

You do not accept that God IS, but you can't perceive Him. Do you?
So God does not exist, period. Any God you lack belief in the existence of, are mere concepts, or explanations made by people who cannot convince you that God IS.

And those people who do believe that God IS have a belief in that God. You have that belief, do you not? So the belief exists. Do I have it? No. I therefore lack it (even using your restrictive definition).

I accept that is how you see it. But remember, you are without God, and as such will never see God in anything. This is why you need to be convinced. Being convinced by others does not mean you will accept God. That's not how it works.

Yet you hold up Anthony Flew as someone who was atheist (without God) "and as such will never see God in anything". Yet he ended up with the belief that God exists.
Hmm. you lack consistency, Jan. Not that you personally ever seemed to have it, but others do, hence you are capable of lacking it. Which you do.

You're confused Sarkus. Being without God, does not mean that God does not exist. It means that you do not perceive God, and live your life as though God doesn't exist. As an atheist, who as thought about it, you live your life constantly as though God doesn't exist, because for you, He doesn't.

I am not confused, Jan, you simply can't spot the inconsistency in what you type.
You claim I am atheist because I am "without God", that atheist means "without God", right?
You say you are atheist (without God) whenever you forget God.
You say (and have repeated above) that I, as an atheist, need evidence to perceive God. Yet you want to claim that you, whenever you are atheist, can happily revert to theist without evidence. So it seems some can jump from being "without God" to "with God" yet others can't.
Sorry, Jan, you are simply coming up with inconsistent drivel instead of actual reasoned responses.

If someone is totally blind, it does not mean that that which he/she cannot see, does not exist... <snip>

Strawman as I have never argued that being "without God" means that God does not exist. Atheism is simply an ontological position, a matter of belief (specifically lack of belief in the existence of god(s)).

You mean how do you get from being without God, to realisation of God?
I think that depends on the individual.
I'm glad you asked this because this is why I brought Anthony Flew into the discussion. He was very similar to you, but realised. He obviously had to explain this change to the likes of his former like-minded, collegues, followers, and fans, in a way that they can understand. Obviously, the moment he explains, it becomes another concept, to the likes of other atheists. They immediately look for reasons to rubbish his concept, and go about their merry ways. So obviously, realising God, is not done through convincing arguments, or listening to others experiences. That is not to say that they do no help in your realisation.

Ah, the old "it just happens". Yes. I'm sure it does.

I've told you that 'atheist' is without God.

As are many people who believe in the existence of God(s).

The atheist is the one who requires evidence, because he cannot perceive God.
At any moment in time, if I forget God, and act out of my own free will, then at that point I am an atheist.

?? So your God doesn't want you to act out of free will??? You think only atheists act out of free will????

If someone flashes a bright light directly into you eyes, and you can't see the world around you as it is. Then at that moment you are blind.

And you know you see again when the evidence informs you.
Or are you saying that at times you can be temporarily rational, before slipping back?

Of course you are without belief. You can't believe in something that does not exist, because what it is you are to believe in. You lack belief in concepts, because no matter what experience someone informs you of, unless you have had the same, or similar experience, it is only a concept.

Given your insistence earlier, please do not equivocate between "believe in X" and "believe that X exists".
We are discussing belief that god(s) exist, and I do not lack belief that the concept of God exists. Anyone who can read is almost certainly aware that the concept most certainly exists, as do many differing concepts referred to as God.
So I believe that the concept of God exists. I am not aware of any concept of God that is such that I believe that it exists as anything other than a concept.

I haven't ignored anything.

You do, Jan, every time you state "atheism means...."
Those who apply the label to themselves do so because it has the meaning that they intend, not the one you wish it to mean. It is disrespectful to continue to ignore their intention, their meaning, and assume that your definition is how it should be,

Plus my comprehension of atheist, does not violate your comprehension.

It does, Jan. Or do you think that anything supposed to have four legs is a dog?

Being without God, is your exact position, and you cannot deny it. Even the word you choose ''lack'', explains that you are without.

There are undoubtedly many/most atheists are "without God". That is not disputed. But your definition would capture under the label of atheism those who do actually believe that god(s) exist but simply act as though God does not exist (e.g. perhaps apathetic from a practical point).
If the definitions were in a Venn diagram, the modern definition would be a subset of the original, but since yours captures others that are not atheists (modern definition) it is not appropriate for you to use the original term to describe/define modern atheism.

...

 

[Sarkus]

My bad. You do have definitions and concepts (based on other people's concepts and definitions). The thing is, you rely on those definitions and concepts to determine whether or not God exists.

Of course, in the absence of direct perception (evidence) that is the only way anything can be assessed. And while you may claim direct experience of God, of what use is that to me in assessing the actuality of that claim without you providing your concept that you have recognised as God? As yet I have not come across any explanation nor description of concept nor experience that rationally leads me to conclude "God".

Someone, who is without love, can easily conclude that love is just imaginary concept, that it really doesn't exist, and those who do believe in it, are deluded, or needy (fuzzy warm feelings that JamesR likes), and unable to face the real world alone, etc... And there would be nothing you can say to change that persons mind into accept love a real. That person has to experience it. That person is you, with regards to God.

Yet love is a wholly subjective emotion, not claimed to be an objective reality. Do you consider God to be similarly wholly subjective?

Yes I accept your own label, but the original label is the underlying meaning, which is undeniable.

No, Jan, it is not the underlying meaning. It is simply the original meaning. Just as "gay" originally meant bright, happy, cheerful, and now means "homosexual". The original meaning has been superseded with regard application to current times.

So if I work with the original label, it automatically incorporates your own label. But your own label is frought with ambiguity, without the original label.

It is all well and good to explore the origins of the word, and the wider original meaning may well incorporate the current meaning. But to use the original meaning in place of the modern meaning means you are incorporating everyone else originally caught under the label... yet you are still only wanting to apply it to the modern atheist. Your obstinacy in this matter is simply disrespectful.
All we ask is that you use the term as it is currently understood: lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Is that too hard for you to do? The term "without God" is no more equivalent to the modern term "atheism" than "anything supposed to have four legs" is equivalent to "dog".

Am I correct that you are wthout God, and currently God does not exist for you?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes.
Am I correct that a dog is something that is supposed to have four legs?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

Now, if I tell you that not everything that is supposed to have four legs is actually a dog, does that surprise you?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

What do you glean from this, perhaps?

Despite your agnosticism you are still without God.

I wouldn't say "despite".

You believe one can not know God, because there is no evidence for God.

No, and no. I believe there are some concepts of God that, if they actually exist, are unknowable. I think ther are some concepts that are knowable but for which I have no personal knowledge/experience, and thus can not say whether they do exist or not.

There is a lack of evidence for God, because you are without God.

If I found evidence I would be "with God", but I haven't, thus I consider it that I am without God because I lack evidence.

That you need evidence for God, shows that the concept of God you are prepared to accept, should evidence be brought forward, isn't God.

So you think God is not able to be evidenced? Yet you see evidence of God in everything.
Even if we have the same concept of God, and you see evidence in everything, that is merely evidence of you holding the a priori assumption that your concept of God does actually exist. I don't start from there, so is this what you mean by "without God"? If I assume that God exists then I will see evidence of God in everything?
I'm guessing you don't see the circularity.

Only you can remove that if.

No, I can't, not without deliberately being irrational, and even then it wouldn't stick because I would know that is what I was doing.

Only you can choose to accept that what you know, isn't enough to realise God.

Er... I do accept that... It's why I self-identify with the label of atheist.

You may convince yourself that the universe manifestation does not need God to be manifest.
But that is based on your own thinking. That's what it means to be without God.

So all those who base things on their own thinking are "without God"? I'm guessing you're not in sales or marketing, right?

Some may look upon that as, the theist cannot think for himself. But that is demonstrably not true, as many of the great thinkers were people who believe(d) in God.

So if it doesn't mean that, how should it be taken?

When you say ''show me the evidence'' and I will accept God as a reality, you are basically putting yourself in the position of God. By this I mean that you believe you are separate from God (should He exist), and you will decide whether or not God is worthy of being worshipped. Based on the criteria of your choice.
This viewpoint is the very thing that stops you from perceiving God.

Why / how do you believe it stops me?

And that is the one source where you can learn about what, even who God is.
You reject that, and rely on human concepts (whether true or false). This puts you further away from the possibility of realising God.

As said, I only reject it being necessarily true. Otherwise it is undoubtedly a great source of understanding the concept of God. Are you suggesting I must believe it is true?

You're right. Comprehending God is not the same as believing in God, or believing that God exists, anymore than comprehding darwinian evolution is the same as believing it to be true, or that it is an actual phenomenon. But in both cases it strengthens your ability to make the right decisions regarding the reality of the particular issue at hand.

No disagreement. So please stop asserting that atheists can not comprehend God.

What is hollow about it?

The hollow statement was your expressing your desire to learn why I am the way I am, when in your very next paragraph you again don't actually enquire but simply assert things. So your desire to learn is hollow.

How is that insulting?

You seriously don't see?? You have basically just trampled on the religious beliefs of people you don't know, can't know. You dismiss them with a No True scotsman fallacy with the sensitivity of an electric chair and the humility of Trump. And you don't see how that is insulting???

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you think all things that are supposed to have four legs are dogs??? That is what your logic is suggesting, Jan.

No. I think that dogs are dogs.

I am "without God" but since people can be "without God" who yet still believe that god(s) exist, you are left thinking all things that are supposed to have four legs are dogs

If you're without God, it doesn't matter if you claim to believe in God. You are still without.

Second, what I lack is belief that god(s) exist. You have that belief, therefore it (the belief) exists (at least for some people) and thus it is possible for me to lack it.

It doesn't matter what you claim to believe in.
I can claim to be a historian without looking into history. It doesn't mean I am a historian.

You have belief that god(s) exist, just as the people have the tarts I cooked.

No. The tarts exist.
Your mates eat them.
They cease to exist.
You now lack something that does not exist.
By your logic you can lack nothing that doesn't exist.
A monumental nonsense.

It does exist, Jan. You have it therefore it (the belief) must exist. I don't have it, yet you do. Therefore I lack it.

Belief exists, period, regardless of the subject matter.
It is the subject matter you lack belief, for the simple reason it currently does not exist.

Sure, I may need to know if I want to actually hold that belief but if, by your own admission, I do not know what God is then I can not have belief in the existence of God and thus I must lack belief that God exists.
Simples, really, Jan.

You do lack belief that God exists because for you, God does not exist. You can also not lack belief that God exist for the same reason. In short it doesn't matter that you lack belief.

Yet you hold up Anthony Flew as someone who was atheist (without God) "and as such will never see God in anything". Yet he ended up with the belief that God exists.
Hmm. you lack consistency, Jan. Not that you personally ever seemed to have it, but others do, hence you are capable of lacking it. Which you do

I have been consistent with the use of the term "currently". The one time I think to take the training wheels off, and you pounce.
Poor standard Sarkus.

I am not confused, Jan, you simply can't spot the inconsistency in what you type.
You claim I am atheist because I am "without God", that atheist means "without God", right?
You say you are atheist (without God) whenever you forget God.
You say (and have repeated above) that I, as an atheist, need evidence to perceive God. Yet you want to claim that you, whenever you are atheist, can happily revert to theist without evidence

You require evidence, by your own admission. The reality is you do not need evidence of God to believe in Him. That is simply an extra requirement.
The difference in our "atheist-ness is that you do not accept God as a reality unless you see some kind of evidence (evidence of your own choosing).

As are many people who believe in the existence of God(s).

If you're without God, you are without God. Even if think you believe in God.

?? So your God doesn't want you to act out of free will??? You think only atheists act out of free will????

You misunderstand. I mean acting out ones own selfish interest.

And you know you see again when the evidence informs you.
Or are you saying that at times you can be temporarily rational, before slipping back?

I've already said what I'm saying.

So I believe that the concept of God exists. I am not aware of any concept of God that is such that I believe that it exists as anything other than a concept.

No one is disputing that concepts exist, and they can be anything the thinker wants them to be.
How is it that an atheist came up with the spaghetti monster, and the invisible dragon in Carl Sagans basement?

You do, Jan, every time you state "atheism means...."
Those who apply the label to themselves do so because it has the meaning that they intend, not the one you wish it to mean. It is disrespectful to continue to ignore their intention, their meaning, and assume that your definition is how it should be,

I've explained why it is relevant to atheists, and that it is what it is regardless of how the atheist prefer to define themselves. Homosexual may want to be referred to as 'gay', but it is not an insult to refer to them as 'homosexual', because that is what they are. The same can be said for a heterosexual.

It does, Jan. Or do you think that anything supposed to have four legs is a dog?

I suppose you gonna keep running with this nonsense.

There are undoubtedly many/most atheists are "without God".

Every single atheist is without God, just like every single Asian person is Asian, even if they don't want to be referred to as that.

But your definition would capture under the label of atheism those who do actually believe that god(s) exist but simply act as though God does not exist (e.g. perhaps apathetic from a practical point).

Believing that God exists, does not make one a theist, because a theist believes in God. To a theist, God obviously exists. From your perspective, just knowing that God exists is a major step, because God does not exist as far as you can see.

If the definitions were in a Venn diagram, the modern definition would be a subset of the original, but since yours captures others that are not atheists (modern definition) it is not appropriate for you to use the original term to describe/define modern atheism.

You have it wrong.
If you are atheist, you are without God.
If you claim to believe that God exists, that does nothing to say you are actually a theist. Show me the evidence, then I will believe. That is an atheist comprehension. That is what you don't get.

You think you can add that if someone claims to believe in God, but live their life as though God does not exist, that makes them a theist. No body becomes or achieves something because they claim it. Why would you think they could? They have to work for it.

How many times have you accused someone who does not accept darwinian evolution, as not having grasped what it is, base their claim out of ignorance. If not you, then it is very common.

So why do you not afford the same standard to theism? If you are a theist, it is practical in your everyday life, not just something that pops up in conversation. It shows in how you dress, what you eat, how you converse, how you treat others. It shows in what you watch, what you read, where you go, how you act in any given situation. You are being insulting by implying that theist is nothing but a verbal claim.

You clearly have no idea.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Of course, in the absence of direct perception (evidence) that is the only way anything can be assessed.

Another betrayal of your comprehension.
Suffice to say, it is not the only way, you only think/believe it is.

Yet love is a wholly subjective emotion, not claimed to be an objective reality. Do you consider God to be similarly wholly subjective?

Everything is ultimately subjective, unless we have direct experience.
God, as the transcendental origin, is subjective, but His works can be understood in the objective realm. Hence, worlds, etc...

No, Jan, it is not the underlying meaning. It is simply the original meaning. Just as "gay" originally meant bright, happy, cheerful, and now means "homosexual". The original meaning has been superseded with regard application to current times.

In this instance, the concern is the real meaning not the preferred meaning. Of course we can use the word 'gay' to describe a homosexual, but he/she is still a homosexual, and the word describes that.
If one never, ever uses the word 'gay', or is not even aware that it is asociated with homosexuals, one would not be insulting an gay person by calling him/her a homosexual.
So there is no 'superceding.

Your obstinacy in this matter is simply disrespectful.

I think your obstinacy in this matter is disrespectful.

All we ask is that you use the term as it is currently understood: lack of belief in the existence of god(s). Is that too hard for you to do? The term "without God" is no more equivalent to the modern term "atheism" than "anything supposed to have four legs" is equivalent to "dog".

I use the term 'atheist'. That's what you refer to yourselves as.

Am I correct that a dog is something that is supposed to have four legs?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

A dog is a dog.

If I found evidence I would be "with God", but I haven't, thus I consider it that I am without God because I lack evidence.

What makes you think you could find evidence of God?
What is God, that you could find evidence from your position of being atheist, to say that this is God.

So you think God is not able to be evidenced? Yet you see evidence of God in everything.

Not in the way you're thinking. God doesn't currently exist as far as you can see. If God does not exist, how can you find evidence from your position, and know that it is evidence. You have to accept God. You have to put aside your measely knowledge, becaue it is measely in the big scheme of things, and accept that you don't have real knowledge. You have to surrender. I don't think you are currently prepared to do that.

that is merely evidence of you holding the a priori assumption that your concept of God does actually exist.

You can't comprehend how everything is evidence of God, because you are looking at it from a different perspective.

No, I can't, not without deliberately being irrational, and even then it wouldn't stick because I would know that is what I was doing.

It has nothing to do with being irrational.
You don't just claim it, and see what happens. You have to change your life.
That may seem drastic, but it's not. We change our lives quite a lot, but we don't notice because it flows with our consciousness. The obvious one is, you may meet a girl, or guy, and before you know where you are, your life as changed because you accept this person as a part of your life.

The significant thing is that, if you now introduce a partner into your life, you can mess up the relationship by trying to live as though no change has taken place. If you don't change, you eventually end up back at square one
The irony is that you were always at square one, as long as you didn't embrace the change.

Er... I do accept that... It's why I self-identify with the label of atheist.

You are atheist, regardless of whether or not you ''self-identify with the label.

Now, if I tell you that not everything that is supposed to have four legs is actually a dog, does that surprise you?
A simple yes or no will suffice.

I don't understand the question enough to give a simple answer.
Like I said. A dog is a dog. I don't need to know any more than that.

So all those who base things on their own thinking are "without God"? I'm guessing you're not in sales or marketing, right?

In terms of saying something like what you said, yes.

Why / how do you believe it stops me?

That is a topic for another thread.

As said, I only reject it being necessarily true. Otherwise it is undoubtedly a great source of understanding the concept of God. Are you suggesting I must believe it is true?

Your knowledge of what is necessarily true is based on what you can comprehend, know, or experience. None of these, or all of these put together can really know much about the entire library of things that can be known. We are limited, no matter how brilliant we may regard ourselves, or others experential, or intellectual prowess, we can't know everything that is to be known.

No disagreement. So please stop asserting that atheists can not comprehend God.

Why should I, when it is true?
This is why you require some kind of evidence, or reassurance.

The hollow statement was your expressing your desire to learn why I am the way I am, when in your very next paragraph you again don't actually enquire but simply assert things. So your desire to learn is hollow.

I don't need you to tell me anything about that aspect I am interested in.
You being an atheist, is not a personal thing. It is a label. I have looked into that label, discussed with countless atheists, and made my conclusion. And you are proving me to be correct.

You seriously don't see?? You have basically just trampled on the religious beliefs of people you don't know, can't know. You dismiss them with a No True scotsman fallacy with the sensitivity of an electric chair and the humility of Trump. And you don't see how that is insulting???

You should know by now that I'm not going to accept mere claims, as truth or reality. You have to show me. If you're going to say you have shown me, then I don't accept what you say, and have in fact shown that you are wrong.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

You should know by now that I'm not going to accept mere claims, as truth or reality.

Now there's a bit of a double standard eh?

There are quite a few examples of evidence of God on the internet.

You certainly know that mere claims are not acceptable, and yet, when pressed for evidence, the best you could offer was "out there on the internet".

I think we are beginning to get the picture. You don't see evidence either.

 

[Michael 345]

Caution

What you are about to read may not be true

No evidence will be offered

The poster (ME) accepts no liability for any adverse effects suffered by anybody, including specifically the loss of faith, by any reader be they, but not limited to, human, aliens, butterflies, whales, god

I was flying back from Bali to Darwin and sitting quietly reading my electronic book when a fellow traveler sat down beside me

We grunted a greeting to each other and I went back to me electronic book

"Isn't god wonderful to provide us with such a paradise island to holiday in and such a wonderful way to travel here"

Feeling a door stop attempt at conversion coming on I jumped in

"Yes I believe the owner of the airline and all the staff from the cleaners up to the pilots are dedicated believers with no need to provide any evidence of their ability to do what they are employed to do

All are treated equally. In fact so much so that when one of the pilots on our flight called in sick the cleaner in the office at the time offered to fly the plane

When asked if he knew how to fly a plane he said he believed he could. That was good enough for the office staff so they got him a uniform and he will be here soon"

Arrrrh peace and quiet.

Back to my electronic book

The power of belief without evidence

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

"Isn't god wonderful to provide us with such a paradise island to holiday in and such a wonderful way to travel here"

So you have met Jan? Some of them just want to tell you or is it like the football thing.. "do you think the dragons will beat the bulldogs?"... Maybe like astrology.." You are a capricorn I could
tell right away"

I would have been tempted to say "God spoke to me in my dream last night he said he would answer my prayer that I die in a plane crash" "I want to go in an exciting way" "I am looking forward to meeting God aren't you..."

I hoped you tied his shoe laces together when he took a nap.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

You are a capricorn I could
tell right away

How on ever did you know I am Capricorn?

January 16th

He left before I got to his shoelaces

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

How on ever did you know I am Capricorn?

January 16th

He left before I got to his shoelaces

Me too 8th...

So do you come here often?
Alex

 

[Sarkus]

No. I think that dogs are dogs.

Good. Then please don't commit the fallacy and equivocate the original meaning of atheism with the modern meaning.

If you're without God, it doesn't matter if you claim to believe in God. You are still without.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Noone is talking about simply claiming to believe but actually believing. Let's stick to that, shall we?

It doesn't matter what you claim to believe in.
I can claim to be a historian without looking into history. It doesn't mean I am a historian.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Who are you to judge? Who is to say you are not "without God"?

No. The tarts exist.
Your mates eat them.
They cease to exist.
You now lack something that does not exist.
By your logic you can lack nothing that doesn't exist.
A monumental nonsense.

The "belief that God exists" exists.
You have it.
I do not.
I lack something that you have.
Your understanding of logic, and application to what you say, is the only nonsense here, Jan.

Belief exists, period, regardless of the subject matter.

Therefore, according to your own definition of "lack", it is possible to lack belief. Yet still you wish to argue the point.

It is the subject matter you lack belief, for the simple reason it currently does not exist.

So now you are admitting that it is possible to lack belief?? Consistency, Jan, please.

You do lack belief that God exists because for you, God does not exist. You can also not lack belief that God exist for the same reason.

Wow - so I do, but I can't, both for the same reason??? I'm guessing you don't see any inconsistency here, Jan?

In short it doesn't matter that you lack belief.

Ah, so now having got nowhere left to run on the matter, other than the linguistic tangles into which you have fallen, you now look to extricate yourself simply by saying that "it doesn't matter".
Sheesh, Jan, you're utterly pathetic.

I have been consistent with the use of the term "currently". The one time I think to take the training wheels off, and you pounce.
Poor standard Sarkus.

What does the term "currently" have to do with anything??? It was not mentioned in the section identified as being inconsistent. Try and refute or excuse a failure on your part with something that actually has relevance to that failure, Jan.

You require evidence, by your own admission. The reality is you do not need evidence of God to believe in Him. That is simply an extra requirement.

So you do not need evidence? So you believe entirely without evidence? Yet in the past you have refuted that belief is entirely without evidence! Again, consistency, please Jan.

The difference in our "atheist-ness is that you do not accept God as a reality unless you see some kind of evidence (evidence of your own choosing).

I do not accept anything as a reality unless there is some kind of evidence. I consider that the rational approach. Don't you? You're happy to accept things with zero evidence?

If you're without God, you are without God. Even if think you believe in God.

No True Scotsman fallacy. Who are you to judge who is "without God"?

You misunderstand. I mean acting out ones own selfish interest.

Ah, so we both have freewill, only theists have to restrict their freewill? Is it really free, then?

I've already said what I'm saying.

So no willingness to clarify. I get it. You speak garbage and expect everyone to filter through it to establish what you mean. Has anyone ever mentioned that you're not actually here for discussion?

No one is disputing that concepts exist, and they can be anything the thinker wants them to be.
How is it that an atheist came up with the spaghetti monster, and the invisible dragon in Carl Sagans basement?

Much the same way as people probably came up with the concept of God: they needed to come up with something that fulfilled a purpose.

I've explained why it is relevant to atheists, and that it is what it is regardless of how the atheist prefer to define themselves. Homosexual may want to be referred to as 'gay', but it is not an insult to refer to them as 'homosexual', because that is what they are. The same can be said for a heterosexual.

But that's not what you're doing. You're referring to them as "gay" and assuming that they are therefore happy, bright etc. You are using the original meaning rather than modern meaning by which they self-identify.

I suppose you gonna keep running with this nonsense.

Until you stop committing the fallacy it highlights.

Every single atheist is without God, just like every single Asian person is Asian, even if they don't want to be referred to as that.

And every single dog is something designed to have four legs. But referring to them as the latter when you are specifically referring to the former commits the fallacy you can't seem to acknowledge doing. Pity.

Believing that God exists, does not make one a theist, because a theist believes in God.

We're not discussing theism, but rather atheism. Let's stick to that, as defining theism would take another thread entirely.

To a theist, God obviously exists.

Would that be with or without evidence?

From your perspective, just knowing that God exists is a major step, because God does not exist as far as you can see.

Other than (not so) subtly inserting the assumption of existence, this is actually true of anything, not just God.

You have it wrong.
If you are atheist, you are without God.

Correct - this is part of the Venn Diagram I explained: atheist (modern usage) is a subset of those without God.

If you claim to believe that God exists, that does nothing to say you are actually a theist. Show me the evidence, then I will believe. That is an atheist comprehension. That is what you don't get.

Ah, but when you are atheist (as you have said you are whenever you forget God), your comprehension is not an atheist comprehension? Consistency, please, Jan.
Furthermore this is simply just more of your No True Scotsman fallacy. All you're ultimately concluding is that to believe in God you have to believe in God. Now, where have I heard that before?

You think you can add that if someone claims to believe in God, but live their life as though God does not exist, that makes them a theist.

This isn't about theism but about atheism. If they truly believe that God exists (and who am I to judge) but live their life as though God does not exist, then they are "without God" but they are not atheist.

No body becomes or achieves something because they claim it.

Noone said otherwise.

Why would you think they could? They have to work for it.

I don't have to work to be an atheist. I simply have to lack belief that God exists. Why would you think I have to work for it?

How many times have you accused someone who does not accept darwinian evolution, as not having grasped what it is, base their claim out of ignorance. If not you, then it is very common.

Then let them argue the point - I can not argue for what I do not do.

So why do you not afford the same standard to theism?

We're not talking about theism here, but atheism, the lack of belief in the existence of god(s). As for the standard I afford to theism, it is the same as I would afford to anyone who does not understand what I do: I would aim to educate as far as possible, in the manner in which they are capable of learning, and be open to correction of my own understanding. What about you? You simply default to the "you haven't grasped it, you're ignorant" approach for furthering discussion?

If you are a theist, it is practical in your everyday life, not just something that pops up in conversation. It shows in how you dress, what you eat, how you converse, how you treat others. It shows in what you watch, what you read, where you go, how you act in any given situation. You are being insulting by implying that theist is nothing but a verbal claim.

I haven't said anything of the sort. This thread is about atheism, not theism. Open another thread if you want to get into what defines a theist. I happily admit that my general view of theism is simply "belief that God exists"... not simply the claim of belief but actual belief... but if you wish theism to be "belief in God"... and not simply the claim of that belief... then great. But we're not talking theism here but atheism.

You clearly have no idea.

Indeed. Makes me wonder why you bother raising the inconsistencies, muddled arguments and tangled linguistic drivel that you do.

 

[Sarkus]

Another betrayal of your comprehension.

No, the comprehension is fine, you just don't like the response...

Suffice to say, it is not the only way, you only think/believe it is.

Do feel free to provide more than just your assertion, why don't you. Or is all you have "you're wrong!"?

Everything is ultimately subjective, unless we have direct experience.
God, as the transcendental origin, is subjective, but His works can be understood in the objective realm. Hence, worlds, etc...

I don't think you know what objective and subjective actually mean, Jan. If God actually exists then he is objective. We can certainly each have our own subjective view of the objective, but the objective exists. If God exists then God is objective.

In this instance, the concern is the real meaning not the preferred meaning. Of course we can use the word 'gay' to describe a homosexual, but he/she is still a homosexual, and the word describes that.
If one never, ever uses the word 'gay', or is not even aware that it is asociated with homosexuals, one would not be insulting an gay person by calling him/her a homosexual.
So there is no 'superceding.

As previously explained, you are using the example the wrong way round: you are referring to them as "gay" and expecting them to understand it as meaning "bright, happy" etc.

I think your obstinacy in this matter is disrespectful.

There is no obstinacy, there is just the modern meaning of those that self-identify. You are refusing to use the word in that manner. The obstinacy is on your part. If you try and squeeze through a doorway that is too small for you, you are obstinate for keeping trying, the doorway is not obstinate for not getting larger.

I use the term 'atheist'. That's what you refer to yourselves as.

And you use it incorrectly, as explained ad nauseam.

A dog is a dog.

Then use the term atheist (modern meaning) to refer to atheists (modern meaning). You continue to use the original meaning, and it is incorrect to do so - as explained.

What makes you think you could find evidence of God?
What is God, that you could find evidence from your position of being atheist, to say that this is God.

If I knew the answer to those I wouldn't still be looking.

Not in the way you're thinking. God doesn't currently exist as far as you can see. If God does not exist, how can you find evidence from your position, and know that it is evidence. You have to accept God. You have to put aside your measely knowledge, becaue it is measely in the big scheme of things, and accept that you don't have real knowledge. You have to surrender. I don't think you are currently prepared to do that.

Believe to believe. If I believe then I will see evidence. Circular reasoning. Is that what it takes?

You can't comprehend how everything is evidence of God, because you are looking at it from a different perspective.

No, I can comprehend: if God exists and is the cause of all then everything would be evidence of God. I get it. It still has the word "if", though, and to simply remove the word "if" through acceptance of God would be circular reasoning.

It has nothing to do with being irrational.

For me it has everything to do with being irrational.

You don't just claim it, and see what happens. You have to change your life.
That may seem drastic, but it's not. We change our lives quite a lot, but we don't notice because it flows with our consciousness. The obvious one is, you may meet a girl, or guy, and before you know where you are, your life as changed because you accept this person as a part of your life.

Sure, all of which is evidence based.

The significant thing is that, if you now introduce a partner into your life, you can mess up the relationship by trying to live as though no change has taken place. If you don't change, you eventually end up back at square one
The irony is that you were always at square one, as long as you didn't embrace the change.

Evidence based. Good stuff, is evidence. You should try it one day.

You are atheist, regardless of whether or not you ''self-identify with the label.

I am atheist because I lack belief in the existence of god(s). Self-identification with the label is simply because the label refers to those who lack belief in the existence of god(s). The reason for such is not part of the label.

I don't understand the question enough to give a simple answer.

Let me reword: does it suprise you that a cat (something that is supposed to have four legs) is not a dog?

Like I said. A dog is a dog. I don't need to know any more than that.

You do if you want to avoid committing the same fallacy over and over and over again.

In terms of saying something like what you said, yes.

So you don't think for yourself?

That is a topic for another thread.

Not really. This thread is about atheism, so if you have details of why you think the viewpoint you think we have stops us from perceiving God, I think it is very relevant. So please do share.

Your knowledge of what is necessarily true is based on what you can comprehend, know, or experience. None of these, or all of these put together can really know much about the entire library of things that can be known. We are limited, no matter how brilliant we may regard ourselves, or others experential, or intellectual prowess, we can't know everything that is to be known.

All rather irrelevant, I'm afraid, as I have not claimed it to not be necessarily true. I simply do not know if it is or not. Now, if you can show how God's existence is necessarily true then please do. Otherwise my position stands, until such time as it is shown to be necessarily true. Simples.

Why should I, when it is true?

So you think comprehension can only come about through "believing in" God? You think atheists are incapable of comprehending God?

This is why you require some kind of evidence, or reassurance.

No. I can comprehend many things that don't exist (such as the motives of a fictional character), and many things that do.

I don't need you to tell me anything about that aspect I am interested in.

So as I said, your claim was hollow, as you're not actually interested at all. You're simply interested in that which supports your biased and blinkered views. I get it.

You being an atheist, is not a personal thing.

It is a personal thing... it is about the individual, the epitome of personal.

It is a label. I have looked into that label, discussed with countless atheists, and made my conclusion. And you are proving me to be correct.

Yet you ignore everything atheists tell you, and simply continue to assert what you want to be true about them, and fit what they say to suit your already-formed conclusion. If that's the way you work, great, just don't expect it to mean anything to others.

You should know by now that I'm not going to accept mere claims, as truth or reality. You have to show me. If you're going to say you have shown me, then I don't accept what you say, and have in fact shown that you are wrong.

Wow - you are utterly ignorant to the gross disrespect your insensitive comments gave, aren't you? Fair enough. Assuming you are indeed a True Scotsman, are all theists as disgusting of character, or is your behaviour simply through ignorance?
As for the laughable irony in your response, I'm guessing you've missed that as well.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Makes me wonder why you bother raising the inconsistencies, muddled arguments and tangled linguistic drivel that you do

Perhaps Jan adopts the... any publicity is good publicy approach when it comes to marketing God.
Alex