In regards to atheism.

[Michael 345]

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

Believing that devil exists, does not make one a Satanists, because a Satanists believes in devil. To a Satanists, devil obviously exists.

I believe in the devil

Am I

• atheists or
• satanists or
  
• without (lacking) god (is Satan considered a god? A bad one but none the less a god) or
• all 3 of the above?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Believing that devil exists, does not make one a Satanists, because a Satanists believes in devil. To a Satanists, devil obviously exists.

I believe in the devil

Am I

• atheists or
• satanists or
  
• without (lacking) god (is Satan considered a god? A bad one but none the less a god) or
• all 3 of the above?

Here you go mate. Knock yourself out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

I don't.
An atheist is a person who is without God.
That what the word actually means.

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

Okay.

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

Excellent point.

The "belief that God exists" exists.
You have it.
I do not.
I lack something that you have.

Are you saying God exists, I have belief, you don't?
Or are you saying as far as I know, God does not exist, and as such, lack belief in something that does not currently exist?
Could you be saying 'I don't know whether or not God exist', but should He exist, I lack belief in Him'?
Do you really think it is as simple as I believe in God, and you lack belief in God?
I'm afraid you tried to define your position so muxh, that it appears to fit into any scenario that is thrown at it. You really do have a come back for everything. But the reality is, you are without God, or God is.

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

According to those definitions you have to have something to lack belief in. You seem to think you can believe in something that does not exist. IOW you seem to think you can lack belief in nothing.

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

Being able to lack belief in something was never in dispute. It is the ability to lack belief in nothing, that I have contention with.

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

There's no inconsistency.
You are Atheist (without God)
You lack belief in God's existence, because there is no God for you to believe in. Therefore your root position is atheist, because God does not exist as far as you're aware. Tell me where I'm wrong, or lack consistency?

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.

If you are without those tarts that you made, because those tarts do not exist. Does it matter what description you prefer to use? Are you not without tarts, regardless?
Are you or are you not without God?
If you are, then obviously you lack belief in God's existence. But it wouldn't matter if you claimed you believe in God's existence, as you would still be without Him.

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.

''Currently'' is very important because being without God, or lacking belief in the existence of God, does not mean God does not exist. And more importantly it doesn't mean that you are actually without God.
It means for whatever reason, you cannot perceive, or comprehend God at this point in time.

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.

There is no point in talking about ''my belief'', or evidence of God. For you, God does not currently exist, and you can't have evidence of nothing. Whether or not I have evidence of God, makes no difference to His existence or not (from my perspective). You can go on lacking belief in His existence, and I can go on believing in Him.

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?

What do you mean by ''zero evidence''? God does not exist perhaps?
Do you have any evidence of that? No? Yet you are prepared to imply it, as though you own the rules. It's simple, you are without God, and I believe in God.

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

I'm making no judgements at all.
If one is without God, then they are without God, whoever they are.
You're problem is that you cannot comprehend or perceive God, and you think that is the starting point. You are not aware that that is your own personal position.

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

That's another topic.

And every single dog is something designed to have four legs.

Nope. A dog is a dog.

You speak garbage

This is unecessary.
Just thought I'd highlight it'.

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.

Because doesn't actually exist?
See you're getting the hang of your real situation.

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.

No I'm not. I'm referring to them as ''homosexual'', as that describes their sexuality.

Atheist (without God) describes you.
'Lacking belief in God' could mean that you belief is waning, but it doesn't. When pushed you admit you 'lack belief in the existence of God'. That could mean you don't not believe in the existence of God, you just aren't sure whether God exists or not. To which I say, God does not currently exist, as far as you are aware.
Whichever way you look at it, you are currently without God (atheist).
Why don't you just accept it, and stop flapping?

You are using the original meaning rather than modern meaning by which they self-identify.

Don't be stupid. I'm referring to them by the name that describes them, which is homosexual, or, heterosexual. They may want to self-identify as ''gay'', but they cannot, or should not, feel insulted if called ''homosexual''. Do you agree or not?

Would that be with or without evidence?

Funny that. You refuse to answer the quote that came above this one, saying we're not talking about theism. Yet here you are, prepared to talk about theist. Do you think your response is a clincher? Well it is from an atheist perspective, for whom God does not exist, but if He did, there would be evidence. Therefore unless the theist can produce the evidence to convince me personally, he/she is deluded.

Can you see how everything is from your perspective?
This is something like Plato's allegory of the cave.

Do you think it is possible to get evidence of nothing? Or do you need evidence of something?
What if I was to tell you that I need as much evidence of God, as you need evidence of no God.

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

There is a difference between God, and anything (from my perspective).

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

If you are without God, then you are without God.
If you are without compassion, then you are without compassion.
Anything you say regarding compassion, is said from the point of view, of being without it.

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.

I don't expect you to get it.

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?

Like I said, I don't expect you to get it.
But I do expect you to be both defensive and offensive.

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?

You don't have to work to lack in belief in nothing. I agree.

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

I think you're lying.
I think you know I'm right, but you are afraid to admit it.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you are without God, then you are without God.

The problem you keep struggling with is that it is equally as valid that you are wrong in your belief.
It is equally possible that believing oneself to be 'with God' is objectively false.

I can accept that there might be a God.
Can you accept that there might not be a God?

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I notice you keep trying to import your assumption that God exists into your discussions with Sarkus and myself. You're trying to sneak that assumption in by the side door. I think the reason you're so fixated on the particular words used to define the term "atheist" is because the only words you'd be willing to accept are words that preserve your underlying assumption that God exists.

I don't much like the word "lack", as in "I lack belief in God". A person lacks something when he needs that thing but it is not available to him. If I am starving, I lack food. If I fail a test, I lack the required understanding that I would need to pass it.

I do not lack a belief in God. I do not need a belief in God. Moreover, belief in God is not unavailable to me. I could, in principle, choose to be a believer at any time.

Nor do I lack God. To assert that somebody lacks God is to assume that (1) God exists, (2) God is needed by the person, and (3) God is unavailable to the person. Notice that we need to overcome that first hurdle before we even get to the other two. A person can't lack God if God doesn't exist.

You are fond of telling atheists that they are "without God". I think by that you mean that they lack God. By saying that atheists are "without God", you seek to imply that (1) God exists, (2) atheists need God, and (3) God is unavailable to atheists.

Clearly, this is very different to the actual position that atheists hold. First, there is no evidence that God exists, so it is safe to assume that he probably doesn't exist. Second, atheists do not live their lives with a secret yearning to know God, for the simple reason that God probably doesn't exist. Third, if God doesn't exist then he is unavailable to everybody, theist and atheist alike.

Atheism isn't a "lack" - it's not a deficiency of something that is needed, or a fatal character flaw. Atheism is simply putting reality above fantasy.

 

[Michael 345]

Jan Ardena:

I notice you keep trying to import your assumption that God exists into your discussions with Sarkus and myself. You're trying to sneak that assumption in by the side door. I think the reason you're so fixated on the particular words used to define the term "atheist" is because the only words you'd be willing to accept are words that preserve your underlying assumption that God exists.

I don't much like the word "lack", as in "I lack belief in God". A person lacks something when he needs that thing but it is not available to him. If I am starving, I lack food. If I fail a test, I lack the required understanding that I would need to pass it.

I do not lack a belief in God. I do not need a belief in God. Moreover, belief in God is not unavailable to me. I could, in principle, choose to be a believer at any time.

Nor do I lack God. To assert that somebody lacks God is to assume that (1) God exists, (2) God is needed by the person, and (3) God is unavailable to the person. Notice that we need to overcome that first hurdle before we even get to the other two. A person can't lack God if God doesn't exist.

You are fond of telling atheists that they are "without God". I think by that you mean that they lack God. By saying that atheists are "without God", you seek to imply that (1) God exists, (2) atheists need God, and (3) God is unavailable to atheists.

Clearly, this is very different to the actual position that atheists hold. First, there is no evidence that God exists, so it is safe to assume that he probably doesn't exist. Second, atheists do not live their lives with a secret yearning to know God, for the simple reason that God probably doesn't exist. Third, if God doesn't exist then he is unavailable to everybody, theist and atheist alike.

Atheism isn't a "lack" - it's not a deficiency of something that is needed, or a fatal character flaw. Atheism is simply putting reality above fantasy.

I hope you noticed I did not get any answer to my question

Only a link reference

Which I can't be bothered with as it is not an answer to my question

I'll take the liberty of putting the question to yourself

I worship Satan who is considered a god

Looks and dresses differently from the white robe version (which I am assuming is the considered version in many of the postings) but still a god

Am I

• atheists (not believe in white robe version) or
• thesist (believe in the red cloak version) or
• satanists (equal to christians of the white robe version believers) or
• without (lacking god because it is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

Begging for a answer

 

[Jan Ardena]

The problem you keep struggling with is that it is equally as valid that you are wrong in your belief.
It is equally possible that believing oneself to be 'with God' is objectively false.

''Theist'' doesn't mean 'with God'.
That aside, that is exactly my point.

[

I can accept that there might be a God.
Can you accept that there might not be a God?

You can accept that there might be God, because you are currently without God.
But from my perspective, there is no point, or need to accept there might not be a God.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I notice you keep trying to import your assumption that God exists into your discussions with Sarkus and myself. You're trying to sneak that assumption in by the side door. I think the reason you're so fixated on the particular words used to define the term "atheist" is because the only words you'd be willing to accept are words that preserve your underlying assumption that God exists.

I thought it was obvious that I assume God exists, just as much as you assume there is no evidence that God exists.
Neither of us can objectively prove our assumptions.
You see it from your perspective, and I see it from mine.

I do not lack a belief in God. I do not need a belief in God. Moreover, belief in God is not unavailable to me. I could, in principle, choose to be a believer at any time.

If that was true, then you would believe now. Because you claim you don't need a belief in God, will not stop you from believing in God, and you only believe something if you think it is true.

Nor do I lack God. To assert that somebody lacks God is to assume that (1) God exists, (2) God is needed by the person, and (3) God is unavailable to the person. Notice that we need to overcome that first hurdle before we even get to the other two. A person can't lack God if God doesn't exist.

First of all, you are assuming that God either, doesn't exist, or probably doesn't exist. I simply assumes He does exist.

You are fond of telling atheists that they are "without God". I think by that you mean that they lack God. By saying that atheists are "without God", you seek to imply that (1) God exists, (2) atheists need God, and (3) God is unavailable to atheists.

The title you bear tells you you are without God.

Coming back to that biblical passage about the what the person says in his heart, there is no God.
That is the reason why an atheist is without God.
The atheist cannot actually be without God, because we are all reliant on God.

1. That's part of my belief.
2. We all need God. The atheist thinks he doesn't need God.
3. There is no reason for me to think God is unavailable to atheists. I brought up Anthony Flew didn't I?

jan.

 

[James R]

Let me see if I can unpack some of Jan's assumptions.

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.

As a first step, we need to disentangle the three concepts "God", "belief that God exists" and "belief in God".

Atheists do not believe that God exists.

They do not "believe in God" in the sense of trusting God, relying on God, placing their confidence in God, because you can't trust, rely on or place confidence in something that doesn't exist.

Atheists are not mentally or spiritually divorced from some God whose existence Jan takes for granted. To assert as much is to show the same arrogant as the atheist who asserts dogmatically that Jan is divorced from reality because he believes in a non-existent supernatural being.

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

I agree. A lack of something means a need for something that is not available (or no longer available).

Nobody can "lack" God if God doesn't exist.

Nor do atheists lack belief in God. Belief in God is not a need that people have like the need for food and water.

But you cannot be without something that does not exist at all.

Hence Jan's sneakiness of trying to important the assumption of God's existence in the very definition of "atheism", by asserting that atheists are "without God".

Of course, we don't have to accept Jan's definition of "without", which he uses in the same sense as "lack". In normal usage, one is "without" something if it is not available (for whatever reason). There is no sense in "without" of any need for the unavailable thing. I am without an x-wing fighter. No x-wing fighters (real ones) exist, so we are all "without" them. Note that by saying this we're not assuming that they actually exist in reality (as opposed to in fantasy); nor are we assuming we have a need for them.

You lack belief in concepts of God, not God.

Atheists have no need to "believe in" concepts of God, in the sense of trusting them, relying on them, etc.

Note that there is no dispute about the existence of concepts of God. Moreover, such things are readily available to all. We must not conflate concepts of God with God.

You do not accept that God IS, but you can't perceive Him. Do you?

"God IS" is just deepity for "God exists". Atheists do not accept that God exists, obviously.

So God does not exist, period.

No, that doesn't not follow. Nobody knows whether God exists, and in fact it is probably unknowable. Mind you, we can say with confidence that particular versions of God as described in the various "scriptures" almost certainly do not exist.

Any God you lack belief in the existence of, are mere concepts, or explanations made by people who cannot convince you that God IS.

There's that word "lack" again, as if atheists really need God, despite their recalcitrance.

I accept that is how you see it. But remember, you are without God, and as such will never see God in anything.

There's no reason, in principle, why God should be any different in this regard to an apple, say. One might assert that if one is "without an apple" then one will never see an apple. That would be a strange thing to assert, though.

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.

Let's apply this to apples.

If one is without an apple, that doesn't no mean that apples do not exist. Obvious.
It does mean that one does not perceive an apple, and that one lives one life as if one did not have an apple (for now). Also obvious.

The statement that "apples do not exist for people who are without them" is false. Clearly apples exist, whether or not one is without them.

Here we again encounter Jan's apparent inability to distinguish what is True from what an individual might believe is the Truth. Clearly, as a general matter, apples either exist or they don't, independent of whether any given individual is currently "with" or "without" an apple. It cannot be true that apples exist "for you" and not "for me".

The same goes for God. Either God exists, or he doesn't. We can talk about whether we believe he exists: you believe, I do not. Fine. But it is wrong to say something like "for you he doesn't exist, but for me he does". The only reason one would do that would be (a) if one were speaking figuratively, and really talking about beliefs rather than God, or (b) if one were deliberately trying to muddy the distinction between existence and belief in existence.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

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.

Here Jan is saying that the real problem with atheists is that they don't have the ability to perceive God, even though God exists. It's a character flaw, according to Jan - a kind of wilful blindness on the part of atheists.

But consider another example, somebody who sees floating orbs everywhere because he has "floaters" in his eyes that affect his vision. The fact that the person honestly perceives those orbs doesn't mean that they exist. It just means that he perceives them. In this example, the perception has a physical cause, but that need not be the case. For example, one might equally well hallucinate orbs or simply imagine them. This does not mean they exist.

A person might well be happy to see the orbs and live his life as is the orbs were real in every respect. But the fact that the person holds a heartfelt belief in the orbs says nothing about whether they are real. Recall also the point I made above about the orbs being "real for him". They are no more "real for him" than for anybody else; it is his belief that they are real that is different.

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.

In other words, to find God we must suspend the "normal" ways we get reliable information about the world, and instead rely on gut feelings and the like.

I've told you that 'atheist' is without God.
The atheist is the one who requires evidence, because he cannot perceive God.

The atheist requires evidence because evidence is what rational thinkers use to make sense of the world. If you throw away evidence you're left only with your own imaginings.

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.

No. We can rely on evidence to see love. Love has visible effects in the real world. People who love are different from those who do not.

It's worth saying, however, that "love" is an intangible concept, whereas God is asserted to be more than a concept - in fact a all-powerful being or person that is directly responsible for all the material things in the universe. The difference between love and God is not insignificant.

Another point: "love" is really a label for a whole bunch of effects. When we feel love, chemical changes happen in our bodies. Our state of mind alters. Our actions are different from the baseline. There are lots of things that, in retrospect, we label "love". It isn't just one thing, but more of a collective term for a certain aspect of the human experience.

"God" is supposed to be a more concrete term than "love".

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.

It is strange, is it not, that so many people seem to effortlessly "realise God". Indeed, the more one investigates God and studies up on ideas of God, the less likely one is to "realise God", or the more likely one is to "unrealise" God. Ironic, no?

Many of the great thinkers were (and are) atheists.

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.

One must not question when it comes to religion; to do so is to insult God. (Convenient, that.) One must simply believe, even when evidence is lacking. This is what faith is.

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.

Instead, one should shut down one's mind and just accept with the gut that God exists. Then you go from there.

Is it insulting to say that a person who does not have sight, is a blind person?

Is it insult to say that a person who is hallucinating has a mental issue?

''Blind'' can be used in a derogartory way, but it is not derogatory if used as the original meaning was intended.

"Delusional" can be used in a derogatory way, but it is not derogatory if used as the original meaning was intended. Right, Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I hope you noticed I did not get any answer to my question

Only a link reference

Which I can't be bothered with as it is not an answer to my question

I'll take the liberty of putting the question to yourself

I worship Satan who is considered a god

Looks and dresses differently from the white robe version (which I am assuming is the considered version in many of the postings) but still a god

Am I

• atheists (not believe in white robe version) or
• thesist (believe in the red cloak version) or
• satanists (equal to christians of the white robe version believers) or
• without (lacking god because it is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

Begging for a answer

I have no clue.
I'm sure you have mentioned you were atheist in the past.
So I'll go with the first one.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I googled atheist and all I found was that it was someone who did not believe in God or Gods I did not find any definition that it meant "without God".
Anyone googling no doubt will find the same so I think we can safely conclude that "atheist" means "a person who does not believe in God or Gods."
Sadly I could not find anything to support Jan's definition.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheists are not mentally or spiritually divorced from some God whose existence Jan takes for granted.

You take God's non existence for granted.

To assert as much is to show the same arrogant as the atheist who asserts dogmatically that Jan is divorced from reality because he believes in a non-existent supernatural being.

That's an outright attack.
Atheists are divorced from God. The person says in his heart, there is no God.

Hence Jan's sneakiness of trying to important the assumption of God's existence in the very definition of "atheism", by asserting that atheists are "without God".

I'm not sneaking it in. That's my position. You have yours.

Of course, we don't have to accept Jan's definition of "without", which he uses in the same sense as "lack". In normal usage, one is "without" something if it is not available (for whatever reason). There is no sense in "without" of any need for the unavailable thing. I am without an x-wing fighter. No x-wing fighters (real ones) exist, so we are all "without" them. Note that by saying this we're not assuming that they actually exist in reality (as opposed to in fantasy); nor are we assuming we have a need for them.

Sarkus begs to differ (according to our discussions).

Atheists have no need to "believe in" concepts of God, in the sense of trusting them, relying on them, etc.

Hence you lack belief in them.
It's not as though they're unobtainable. Plenty of atheists have been partial to them, only to realise they're not real.

"God IS" is just deepity for "God exists".

So you say.

No, that doesn't not follow. Nobody knows whether God exists, and in fact it is probably unknowable. Mind you, we can say with confidence that particular versions of God as described in the various "scriptures" almost certainly do not exist.

Well He doesn't exist currently for you. Does He.
So at least for now, God does not exist. You can't deny that, unless you're not atheist.

There's no reason, in principle, why God should be any different in this regard to an apple, say. One might assert that if one is "without an apple" then one will never see an apple. That would be a strange thing to assert, though.

It is not surprising that you could make that distinction.
But I don't perceive God the way I perceive an apple.
So I'll have to leave you with you concept.

The same goes for God. Either God exists, or he doesn't.

Okay.

But it is wrong to say something like "for you he doesn't exist, but for me he does". The only reason one would do that would be (a) if one were speaking figuratively, and really talking about beliefs rather than God, or (b) if one were deliberately trying to muddy the distinction between existence and belief in existence.

You might think it's wrong, because God doesn't currently exist as far you're aware, but it makes no difference.
For me God does exist. I am as much correct as you are from our perspectives.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Here Jan is saying that the real problem with atheists is that they don't have the ability to perceive God, even though God exists. It's a character flaw, according to Jan - a kind of wilful blindness on the part of atheists.

No. Please stop putting words in my mouth. That was an analogy to give the idea of actually being without something.
Because somebody is blind, it doesn't mean the world stops being the perceived world for everybody.
It is true that for a sighted person, the sun glows orange as it sets, it is true that for a blind person it doesn't.
It is true that an atheist does not perceive God, and it is true that a theist does.

But consider another example, somebody who sees floating orbs everywhere because he has "floaters" in his eyes that affect his visiong. The fact that the person honestly perceives those orbs doesn't mean that they exist. It just means that he perceives them. In this example, the perception has a physical cause, but that need not be the case. For example, one might equally well hallucinate orbs or simply imagine them. This does not mean they exist.

This is just saying that theists are delusional. That they think they perceive God, but really it's not God, just an illusion.
You're bound to say that, if you are trying to be a rational atheist. That, and , lack of evidence, is all you have.
But where is your evidence that God is an illusion? Because I, nor anyone else can convince you that God Is?
Is that what you're really basing it on?

In other words, to find God we must suspend the "normal" ways we get reliable information about the world, and instead rely on gut feelings and the like.

Why do you equate knowing God with finding reliable information about the world?
When you say things like that, it highlights the original meaning of atheist.

The atheist requires evidence because evidence is what rational thinkers use to make sense of the world. If you throw away evidence you're left only with your own imaginings.

You don't require evidence, you require closure.

No. We can rely on evidence to see love. Love has visible effects in the real world. People who love are different from those who do not.

What evidence, and what effects?

It's worth saying, however, that "love" is an intangible concept, whereas God is asserted to be more than a concept - in fact a all-powerful being or person that is directly responsible for all the material things in the universe. The difference between love and God is not insignificant.

You can't access or perceive love through evidence, you have to experience it, to be able to comprehend it.
It doesn't matter how little you have given or received, you will recognise it.
It's the same with God.

It is strange, is it not, that so many people seem to effortlessly "realise God". Indeed, the more one investigates God and studies up on ideas of God, the less likely one is to "realise God". Ironic, no?

If ideas are what you study to perceive God, I'm not surprised you aren't very likely to ''realise God''.

One must not question when it comes to religion; to do so is to insult God. (Convenient, that.) One must simply believe, even when evidence is lacking. This is what faith is.

Is this the kind of faith you had?

Instead, one should shut down one's mind and just accept with the gut that God exists. Then you go from there.

Yeah! Go to that extreme. It couldn't be anything else. Could it?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I googled atheist and all I found was that it was someone who did not believe in God or Gods I did not find any definition that it meant "without God".
Anyone googling no doubt will find the same so I think we can safely conclude that "atheist" means "a person who does not believe in God or Gods."
Sadly I could not find anything to support Jan's definition.
Alex

I am using the original translation of the word.

Theos = God
ATheos = without God (the prefix 'a' meaning without)

A theist is a person who believes in God/gods
An atheist is a person without God/gods.

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Sadly I could not find anything to support Jan's definition.
Alex

Arrrh why sad?

So you say.

And so say all of us
And so say all of us
God IS" is just deepity for "God exists"
And so say all of us

I believe in Satan

Am I

• atheists (not believe in white robe version) or
• thesist (believe in the red cloak version) or
• satanists (equal to christians of the white robe version believers) or
• without (lacking god because it is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

I have no clue.
I'm sure you have mentioned you were atheist in the past.
So I'll go with the first one.

So you did have a clue (I'm sure you have mentioned you were atheist in the past.)

Sure you don't want to change your position?

After all my god is the Devil so I am not without god

Just another version from the white robe version

If you are not going to change your answer do I assume your position is

Theist believe in god of the white robe flavour

A theist who believes in the devil god is a atheist

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I am using the original translation of the word.

Theos = God
ATheos = without God (the prefix 'a' meaning without)

A theist is a person who believes in God/gods
An atheist is a person without God/gods.

jan.

I know you rely upon ancient interpretations of many things Jan but perhaps in this instance you really should work with the interpretation of the day which clearly now, is as I stated and can be readily found on the net.
To avoid acceptance of the current meaning is your affair however it is most unfair of you to argue that your definition is current or indeed appropriate. You appear driven to believe there is a God and you may do that however you are not entitled to claim the discarded meaning of a word is still correct.
You may have the origin of the word correct but things really have moved on from there.
It is not right to insist something is true which clearly is not correct simply because it fits your beliefs.
It is up to you.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Arrrh why sad?

Sadly for Jan in so far as I could find no support for the position he has taken on the meaning of the word athiest.
It is simple,..... sadly for Jan the situation is not as he believes it to be. I could not find anything in support of his "without God" proposition.
Nevertheless I doubt if this thread will end as I suspect Jan just thinks he has not made his point clear enough for us nonbelievers to grasp.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Sadly for Jan in so far as I could find no support for the position he has taken on the meaning of the word athiest.
It is simple,..... sadly for Jan the situation is not as he believes it to be. I could not find anything in support of his "without God" proposition.
Nevertheless I doubt if this thread will end as I suspect Jan just thinks he has not made his point clear enough for us nonbelievers to grasp.
Alex

I haven't asked if he believes in the devil as I not really geared up for another avalanche of PingPong

You must know Dave Allen and I found this 13 minute clip

I think joke 2 sums up the two positions within this thread

Enjoy

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You must know Dave Allen and I found this 13 minute clip

Yes brilliant, thanks.
Alex