In regards to atheism.

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You take God's non existence for granted.

It really doesn't matter how much I tell you that I have an open mind as to the possibility that God exists. You will keep insisting that I have concluded that God doesn't exist, regardless. I don't claim to know whether God exists or not; you're the only one of the two of us who makes that kind of baseless claim to knowledge that he does not possess.

That's an outright attack.

Correct. And just to be clear: that was an example of a below-the-belt argument that somebody else might make. Compare and contrast your own attitude to atheists.

Atheists are divorced from God.

That's your belief. The atheists believe that God (probably) does not exist. And when push comes to shove, you have nothing but your own say-so, and the say-so of others like yourself, that he does exist.

The person says in his heart, there is no God.

The fool, you mean. There you go with the insults again.

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

Your position is that it is you who gets to define what an atheist is, rather than the self-identifying atheist.

Sarkus begs to differ (according to our discussions).

I'm aware of that. I am not Sarkus. Atheists are not compelled to agree with one another about everything. Atheism isn't a religion.

So you say.

And you offer no rebuttal.

Well He doesn't exist currently for you. Does He.

He (probably) doesn't exist - for either of us. You just believe he does.

But I don't perceive God the way I perceive an apple.

Now here's an opportunity to make some progress, if you're willing to share.

Exactly how do you perceive God? Not "you" in general terms, but you, Jan Ardena, theist.

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.

You're still floundering around.

Obviously we can differ in our beliefs about God's existence. But either God exists or he doesn't, in fact. And if he doesn't exist, then your perspective is wrong, no matter how strongly you believe in it.

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.

It is true that a blind person does not perceive the sunset, but the sunset is there regardless of the blind person's lack of perception.
Similarly, it is true that Magical Realist perceives that Bigfoot exists, but it is nevertheless true that there is no Bigfoot.

How does the theist know that he perceives God, as opposed to merely imagining God?

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.

No. For example, I am aware of evidence that the perception of God - that feeling that there's something bigger that is present with us - can be switched on and off in the brain by appropriate electrical stimulation of the right region.

I know of many cases in which people hold steadfast beliefs in things that are demonstrably false. Some people believe that pyramids have mystical powers. Some people believe they have been kidnapped by aliens. It seems very likely indeed that these people are delusional, regardless of their very strong beliefs. Belief in God is really no different, other than that the belief in that case is more socially acceptable.

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?

God has no effect in the world. The world runs along quite nicely according to natural laws. We don't see God-given miracles. God doesn't talk to people. This God that is described as Good apparently turns a blind eye to all kinds of evil in the world. Of course, absence of evidence isn't conclusive evidence of absence, so you have a point there - just a weak one.

When we look at various religious traditions we see wildly diverging descriptions of God (or, more properly, gods). The scriptures that provide the foundation for religions are contradictory (indeed, often self-contradictory) and are clearly the product of human invention.

Moreover, there's abundant evidence that the human mind is susceptible to all kinds of mistake and self-deception.

Of course I have no conclusive evidence that God is an illusion. It is hard to prove that kind of negative. Besides, the concept(s) of God is constructed in just such a way as to make disproof difficult. Theists have had literally thousands of years to adapt their fantasies of God and to rationalise away the absurdities so as to make God an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

I conclude that God (probably) does not exist because there's simply no rational reason to suppose that he exists. The most parsimonious explanation for God is that he is a human mythological construct.

Why do you equate knowing God with finding reliable information about the world?

Because theists like yourself keep telling me that the world wouldn't be the way it is without God. One would suppose, therefore, that God's signature could be found somewhere in his Creation.

You don't require evidence, you require closure.

No, I really don't. I made my peace with doubt quite some time ago. I'm a comfortable doubter, happy not to pretend I know everything. I'm content that there are many questions I will never have answers for.

How about you? It sounds to me like you think you have the One Big Answer already: God did it. You realise that's a space-filler, don't you?

What evidence, and what effects?

What are the effects of love?

Take the love of a parent for a child, for example. That love manifests itself in the parent's actions - looking after the child, educating the child, entertaining the child, wanting the best for the child, etc. etc. Anybody seeing the parent's actions can see that the parent loves the child. That's evidence for love. Or, more properly, "love" is the label we put on this kind of disparate collection of actions and attitudes and feelings.

This is not to say that this evidence for love is all that love is. Love is also feelings of concern, tenderness, warm fuzziness and so on. Romantic love is associated with lust. But feelings are subjective. There is, of course, abundant evidence that people report similar feelings when they describe acts of love.

You can't access or perceive love through evidence, you have to experience it, to be able to comprehend it.

I disagree. Experience can help, but it's not absolutely necessary. One could explain to an alien that the actions of the parent show something we call "love", and the alien would see the pattern after enough study of that kind of thing.

Of course, when it comes to atheism, it is a fact that many atheists have previous "done" the God thing. They already have the experience you say they need to "get" God. But they realised at some point that it was an illusion.

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

You're back to "atheists are doing it wrong" again.

Why do you never open up about the right way to do it, Jan? You're constantly preaching that atheists are misguided and closed etc. etc., but you have nothing to offer in terms of practical advice on how one gets God, other than to suggest that people should just start trying to believe for no particular reason.

Is this the kind of faith you had?

Yes. That is what (religious) faith amounts to: pretending to know stuff you don't know. To put it bluntly. And not just pretending to other people - pretending to yourself. The easiest person in the world to fool is yourself.

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

You haven't suggested an alternative.

 

[Sarkus]

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

That is what it used to mean. Until you stop using the old meaning you are committing the fallacy.

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'?

Im actually saying none of those. I am saying that there exists "belief that God exists". You have this "belief that God exists" whereas I lack this "belief that God exists".
Similarly I could say there exists some "pie". You have this "pie" whereas I lack this "pie".

Do you really think it is as simple as I believe in God, and you lack belief in God?

No. It's as simple as I lack belief that god(s) exist and this is the definition of an atheist, hence I am an atheist.

I'm afraid you tried to define your position so muxh, that it appears to fit into any scenario that is thrown at it.

Try actually understanding the definition of "lack belief that god(s) exist" and you will see everything I have said is consistent with that. Not rocket science.

You really do have a come back for everything. But the reality is, you are without God, or God is.

Ah, so with no sensible comeback of your own you resort to nothing more than "well, you're wrong"?

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.

First it is according to your understanding of those definitions. Second I am not talking about "belief in" but simply "belief that god(s) exist." You insisted previously on the distinction so please continue to abide by it; this isn't the first time you have slipped.
Thirdly, as expressed above, if X is "belief that God exists" then you have X. X exists. Therefore even using your understanding of the definitions one can lack X.

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.

Other than being a strawman due to your slippage from"belief that God exists" to "belief in God", it still hinges on your personal understanding of those words. As others have expressed, it is a Humpty Dumpty approach on your part.

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?

Your exact quote was: "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".
So you agree I do lack belief for reason X, but you say I can also not lack belief for reason X. and you see no inconsistency?
Figures, I guess.

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?

Someone may have the tarts but simply choose to ignore them. They believe those tarts exist. They are still "without tarts" but differ from those people that do not even believe those tarts exists.
This is the fallacy you're committing that you can't seem to comprehend, Jan. Just because All P are Q does not mean that all Q are P. You are using Q as being equivalent to P on the basis that all P are Q.

Are you or are you not without God?

Are dogs something that are supposed to have four leg So?

If you are, then obviously you lack belief in God's existence.

Not true. There are those, as already explained, that are "without God" that do not lack belief in God's existence. They not only claim to believe that God exists but actually believe that God exists. Yet live on a day to day basis "without God".

But it wouldn't matter if you claimed you believe in God's existence, as you would still be without Him.

And? The issue is not that all atheists (modern usage) are "without God" (original usage) but that not all those "without God" are atheists (modern usage).

''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.

Eh??? So having argued from the outset that atheists are "without God" you are now trying to say that this doesn't mean that atheists are actually "without God"? So atheists aren't atheists?
Seriously, Jan, what is the point in further discussion if you're just going to throw up such drivel?

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.

Ah, the inevitable evasion from the tangled garbage of your argument, I see.

What do you mean by ''zero evidence''? God does not exist perhaps?

No. It means no evidence upon which to make a determination.

Do you have any evidence of that? No? Yet you are prepared to imply it, as though you own the rules.

I make no such implication. But since you don't listen to anything anyone actually says but simply wander off on your own agenda, it is not surprising that you see it as an implication. You see everyone as a hard-nosed hard atheist actively believing that God does not exist. You have claimed to want to learn why people are the way they are yet you merely just want to take snippets to plaster onto your strawman of a caricature.

It's simple, you are without God, and I believe in God.

Does that mean I am without God, or that I am not actually without God?

...

 

[Sarkus]

I'm making no judgements at all.
If one is without God, then they are without God, whoever they are.

You judge, Jan. You say atheists to be without God (or maybe not actually without God) because you have judged them to be so.

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.

Of course it's my personal position. You expect me to adopt yours, or someone else's?

Nope. A dog is a dog.

So you don't think all dogs are supposed to have four legs???

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

You may be right: everyone can probably tell without me needing to say it explicitly.

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

Please don't put words in my mouth. Just because people come up with an idea doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist.

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

Ah, so you'd use the word "gay" in the modern sense rather than the original, then? Because it accurately describes the way they self-identify? Hmm. Double-standards, it seems, Jan. What's that word... Oh, yes, consistency.

Atheist (without God) describes you.

So does "human". Wait, what do you mean that not all humans lack belief that God exists? How can that be!!?

'Lacking belief in God' could mean that you belief is waning, but it doesn't.

Lack means "lack", as in absent, non-existence etc. Your semantic gaming is tiring, Jan.

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?

For the last time, Jan, I am not disputing that I am without God, that is not the issue. The issue is not that atheists (modern usage) are without God (your usage) but that not all those without God are atheist (modern usage).
Argue the actual issue or simply pack up and leave. Your continual evasion and strawman tactics are tiring.

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?

Oh, ffs, Jan. You have utterly failed yet again to (deliberately?) miss the point.
The question is: they self-identify as "gay" so why would you go up to them and argue that they are not using the term as it was originally intended, to mean "happy" etc. You wouldn't, would you? You would use the term they use to self-identify with the meaning they apply to the word. Agreed?
So why do you insist on not using the term "atheist" as those who self-identify as such intend it to be meant?

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.

Methinks you have read to much into a simple flippant comment. C'est la vie.

What if I was to tell you that I need as much evidence of God, as you need evidence of no God.

For me to believe that there is no God I would need evidence of some alternative being the truth. So can I assume that you need evidence of God to believe in God? What evidence? Can you show me?

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

Of course, otherwise everything would be omnipotent and the cause of all. But if something is the result of X then X can be logically inferred. In that way would you not agree that you see everything as evidence of God?

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

Is that actually or not actually?

If you are without compassion, then you are without compassion.

Your mastery of logic knows no bounds, Jan.

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

But not necessarily from the view point of not having a comprehension.

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

Ah, so you defend garbage with "I don't expect you to get it". As long as it means something to you in your Humpty Dumpty ways, that's all that matters in a discussion, isn't it, Jan. No need to communicate effectively, is there.

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

Ah, says the person who says that one can't lack belief in that which doesn't exist. Yet more of your fine consistency, Jan.

I think you're lying.

No, I really do wonder.

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

You are free to think what you like, Jan. As long as it makes you comfortable, that is the main thing.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Of course, when it comes to atheism, it is a fact that many atheists have previous "done" the God thing. They already have the experience you say they need to "get" God. But they realised at some point that it was an illusion.

Not me, a third-generation atheist. I was seven when a little boy in my school sat down and began telling me about this fellow named "God" who lives in the clouds and can see everything we do. It was quite a story, but of course kids at that age are very creative. I giggled and laughed appreciatively at what seemed to be the right moments, because, after all, this really was a terrific story!

I could not understand why he did not appreciate my laughter. I was only attempting to be supportive of his creativity.

When I came home from school I told Momma about it and asked what I had done wrong. She sat down in a very comfortable chair and began to tell me the truth. I was no dummy and I easily connected this "God" fellow to the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I pointed out to her that by this age, virtually all children had been told the truth about those three popular imaginary creatures, and I wondered when people finally begin to tell their children the truth about this ridiculous "God" person.

She actually broke into tears, and explained that most people grow up believing in this particular fairytale--which has been the cause of most of the most horrible wars on Earth. (This was 1952, but they hadn't even tried to explain WWII to me, much less anti-Semitism, much less the fact that if Hitler had won the war, with my 25% Jewish DNA I would have been on the block.)

It would be three years before I learned the word "cynic," but when I did, I realized that I was one.

Why do you never open up about the right way to do it, Jan? You're constantly preaching that atheists are misguided and closed etc. etc., but you have nothing to offer in terms of practical advice on how one gets God, other than to suggest that people should just start trying to believe for no particular reason. Yes. That is what (religious) faith amounts to: pretending to know stuff you don't know. To put it bluntly. And not just pretending to other people - pretending to yourself. The easiest person in the world to fool is yourself.

Well said. People have so little faith in humanity that they'd rather believe in a preposterous Bronze Age fairytale, than actually go out and try to teach their neighbors to be better people.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm aware of that. I am not Sarkus. Atheists are not compelled to agree with one another about everything. Atheism isn't a religion.

Indeed.
While "lack" I think can be used to express a need, I think it more generally simply conveys relative differences without implication of benefit.
If you compare two ancient coins, for example, one might say that while one lacks the definition of the other, it also lacks the scratches on the edges. When we talk of lacking food we are implicitly comparing our current state with an ideal (or at least preferred) state, and in this case the implied need arises.

The main reason I think it is used in the definition of atheist: "lack belief that god(s) exist" is simply so as not to imply the stronger position of actually holding belief that god(s) do not exist, again without any implication of a need for that belief.

So a small difference, and nothing that can't be overcome through honest discussion.

 

[Michael 345]

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 he is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

Deafening silence

 

[Sarkus]

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 he is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

Deafening silence

Do you "believe in" Satan or do you merely believe that Satan exists?
Do you perhaps "believe in" Satan while not actually believing that Satan exists?
Do you believe that Satan is a god?
Do you "believe in" God? Do you believe that God exists?
Do you believe that God is Satan, or that Satan is God?
Do you self-identify with any of the terms?
Do you change the meaning of the words you are using to suit your argument?

 

[pluto2]

If God really exists then the world would not be such a cruel place.

This world is a very cruel place. Many people actually suffer on this planet and God does not nothing to help and assist them in their difficulties and struggles.

So many people commit suicide every year that it's not possible for a loving God to exist.

Anyone who checks the suicide statistics can see that this world is a really cruel and evil place.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/234219.php

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

 

[Jan Ardena]

No. It's as simple as I lack belief that god(s) exist and this is the definition of an atheist, hence I am an atheist.

Hence you are without God, and that's what atheist means, regardless of you reason's, self-identification, or personal preferences.

Ah, so with no sensible comeback of your own you resort to nothing more than "well, you're wrong"?

You are without God, is the reality.
I believe in God is the reality.
You just don't like your position put like that. But that is what it is.

First it is according to your understanding of those definitions.

So what is your understanding?

Other than being a strawman due to your slippage from"belief that God exists" to "belief in God", it still hinges on your personal understanding of those words. As others have expressed, it is a Humpty Dumpty approach on your part.

You claim to lack belief in something that currently does not actually exist, in any way, for you.
That means you are capable of lacking belief in nothing. I don't believe you do. It simply boils down to 'God does not exist'.
You may intellectually conclude that you don't know whether God exists, or not. But you do so because currently, God does not exist, as far as you're aware.

So you agree I do lack belief for reason X, but you say I can also not lack belief for reason X. and you see no inconsistency?
Figures, I guess.

I agree that you are without God, and from that stems all your other stuff.

Someone may have the tarts but simply choose to ignore them. They believe those tarts exist. They are still "without tarts" but differ from those people that do not even believe those tarts exists.
This is the fallacy you're committing that you can't seem to comprehend, Jan. Just because All P are Q does not mean that all Q are P. You are using Q as being equivalent to P on the basis that all P are Q.

I don't know what you're trying to say. The quote you're responding to is very straight-forward. It only needs a straight-forward response.

Are dogs something that are supposed to have four leg So?

Dogs are dogs.
Now, are you without God?

Not true. There are those, as already explained, that are "without God" that do not lack belief in God's existence. They not only claim to believe that God exists but actually believe that God exists. Yet live on a day to day basis "without God".

You've explained nothing, you simply assert it, so you don't have to go any further.

And? The issue is not that all atheists (modern usage) are "without God" (original usage) but that not all those "without God" are atheists (modern usage).

Put a pipe in it Sarkus. That's nonsense, and you know it is.

Eh??? So having argued from the outset that atheists are "without God" you are now trying to say that this doesn't mean that atheists are actually "without God"? So atheists aren't atheists?
Seriously, Jan, what is the point in further discussion if you're just going to throw up such drivel?

''The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God''
Being without God is your choice.

No. It means no evidence upon which to make a determination.

If there is ''zero evidence'' of the existence of something, then for all intent and purpose, that something does not exist. Get over it.

You see everyone as a hard-nosed hard atheist actively believing that God does not exist.

Do you know of any atheist that live their lives as though God exists?

You have claimed to want to learn why people are the way they are yet you merely just want to take snippets to plaster onto your strawman of a caricature.

I know why you're atheist.
How is categorizing the atheist as 'being without God' a strawman of a caricature?

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

You judge, Jan. You say atheists to be without God (or maybe not actually without God) because you have judged them to be so.

You're without God, because God doesn't currently exist, you can't believe in something that does not exist.

Ah, so you'd use the word "gay" in the modern sense rather than the original, then? Because it accurately describes the way they self-identify? Hmm. Double-standards, it seems, Jan. What's that word... Oh, yes, consistency.

I'll interchange. I'm not fussed.
I've told you I accept your personalized preferrence, I don't mind. But as far as you're concerned, God does not currently exist, and as such you are without God. That is either a fact, or it isn't.

For the last time, Jan, I am not disputing that I am without God, that is not the issue.

Glad to hear it.

So does "human". Wait, what do you mean that not all humans lack belief that God exists? How can that be!!?

I'm not talking about human. I'm talking about atheist.
Now are you going to use this as yet another aversion.


You admit that you are without God.
Which means that God does not exist for you.
You can call it 'lack believe in God's existence' if you like.
But it is what it is, at its core.

The question is: they self-identify as "gay" so why would you go up to them and argue that they are not using the term as it was originally intended, to mean "happy" etc. You wouldn't, would you? You would use the term they use to self-identify with the meaning they apply to the word. Agreed?
So why do you insist on not using the term "atheist" as those who self-identify as such intend it to be meant?

I wouldn't go up to them and argue anything of the sort.
What I'm saying is that regardless of any other name, they are 'homosexual', as that describes their sexuality.
In the same way you are atheist, because you are without God. You may not want to see it that way, but that is a fact.
You can define yourself how you like, but you cannot dispute that the original meaning is the root cause of atheism.
From there you may conclude that there is no evidence for these concepts of God, but you perceicve God in that way (different concepts) because God does not actually exist for you, and therefore you are without God.

For me to believe that there is no God I would need evidence of some alternative being the truth. So can I assume that you need evidence of God to believe in God? What evidence? Can you show me?

No you don't.
Does God exist for you, as you read this. No? Then God doesn't actually exist as far as you're aware.
Simples.

I can't show you evidence, because for you God does not exist.
The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God.
If God doesn't exist, there is no evidence to be had.
To ask for evidence of God, is to justify you're own position.
You seek closure. Not evidence.

But not necessarily from the view point of not having a comprehension.

True, but your comprehension hails from the position of being without it, while others have it.
Such comprehension will always fall short of the real thing.

Ah, says the person who says that one can't lack belief in that which doesn't exist. Yet more of your fine consistency, Jan.

jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Do you "believe in" Satan or do you merely believe that Satan exists?

I believe in Satan

Don't over think it

Do you perhaps "believe in" Satan while not actually believing that Satan exists?

I believe in Satan

Don't over think it

Do you believe that Satan is a god?

Yes

Do you "believe in" God? Do you believe that God exists?

Yes the Satan version

Yes the Satan version

Do you believe that God is Satan, or that Satan is God?

god the Satan version is Satan so Satan is god Satan version

Do you self-identify with any of the terms?
Do you change the meaning of the words you are using to suit your argument?

Some yes some no

No

So

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 he is not the white robe version) or
• any mix of the above?

?

 

[birch]

I was watching that savage movie 'apocalypto' and i was thinking how the oppressed were praying to these gods and/or spirits but most importantly behind this was living beings with the drive for self preservation have a sense of divine right to exist and not to be oppressed etc whereas those who do oppress have gods or believe they do have a right to oppress so it all depends on whose shoes you are in at the moment. but the bottomline is religion that has evolved to become sensitive and understand that the enemy is the struggle for life itself would not make it more difficult for others and vice versa, so the compassion, sympathy and those who value life more not just their own.

There prayer to a god stems from the idea that no human should be over another human and those who do (have their gods/spirit guides) see only one side or hypocritical, that no human should be over them but they should be over other humans. Egalitarianism vs heirarchy, democracy vs dictatorship etc.

So, from the beginning, wouldn't you start to philosophize or think of a concept that you have a right to live or not be oppressed or question why? then form a concept of a deity, the creator , universe or god or entity or whatever that gave a lifeform it's inherent dignity and will to survive and exist?

Since we have come this far, we assume that there was and never a need for the concept of a god in the evolution of humans and reasoning but there probably was. Maybe perhaps now it does not as much but it could depending on variables where we forget and because no concept of any morals tied with an authority is dangerous but that's also not absolute as we can see the problems and dangers with religion and absolute authority as it can be used for oppression or liberation depending on the nature of what people consider to be a fit god. We only need look at the middle east a a blatant example right now.

 

[birch]

Let me edit that. I think some people's concept of a diety is not limited to this universe or the concept of a creator of it. i think those who oppress use the scenario of how things are here, laws of nature etc as justification whereas those who understand or have sympathy for life in general and the struggles we must endure or overcome are those who see that as circumstantial/temporal and god as beyond and outside of this system so not a justification for it, an authority that's beyond current circumstances and/or operation.

What i've found is that those who believe that god created this universe and everything a it is in nature will undoubtedly be predatorial or condoning of it themselves so you will see sadism as well as masochism in the religion and this is where they and the religion is useless which the archaic versions of fundamental religions lean more towards but the concept of a diety that proposes a non-predatorial heaven or afterlife and the proverbial devil has corrupted this world is good fodder for teaching humane ethics which is one of the reasons why society has become a tad less gruesome than it was in the past or 'civilized' to some extent. That said, there are still plenty of religionists of the angle that nature as it is exactly how god intended it to be so just because even two individuals profess to believe in one god or part of one religion, there seems to be varying beliefs in what god is depending on the nature of those individuals.

I agree with the former because even without religion and looking at the universe/nature, it seems arbitrary and accidental in many ways starting with the big bang. i would even consider it gratuitous for some to use the circumstances of our plight here to take advantage and justify it as a willful and thought out, premeditated creation.

 

[spidergoat]

Let me edit that. I think some people's concept of a diety is not limited to this universe or the concept of a creator of it. i think those who oppress use the scenario of how things are here, laws of nature etc as justification whereas those who understand or have sympathy for life in general and the struggles we must endure or overcome are those who see that as circumstantial/temporal and god as beyond and outside of this system so not a justification for it, an authority that's beyond current circumstances and/or operation.

What i've found is that those who believe that god created this universe and everything a it is in nature will undoubtedly be predatorial or condoning of it themselves so you will see sadism as well as masochism in the religion and this is where they and the religion is useless which the archaic versions of fundamental religions lean more towards but the concept of a diety that proposes a non-predatorial heaven or afterlife and the proverbial devil has corrupted this world is good fodder for teaching humane ethics which is one of the reasons why society has become a tad less gruesome than it was in the past or 'civilized' to some extent. That said, there are still plenty of religionists of the angle that nature as it is exactly how god intended it to be so just because even two individuals profess to believe in one god or part of one religion, there seems to be varying beliefs in what god is depending on the nature of those individuals.

I agree with the former because even without religion and looking at the universe/nature, it seems arbitrary and accidental in many ways starting with the big bang. i would even consider it gratuitous for some to use the circumstances of our plight here to take advantage and justify it as a willful and thought out, premeditated creation.

Confused, please re-write. C-

 

[birch]

The serious problem with religion is that it will always attract megalomaniacs and sociopaths because of the 'god almighty and powerful club' and 'forgiveness of all and any sins club' and 'once saved, always saved club' angle besides others for various reasons. It also has no real enforcement or punishment against the very sins/wrongs they are asking followers to not commit as well as other rules so that's another bs and attractive angle. All one has to do is profess 'belief' in a god or religion and you are a member regardless of character, what you actually do or don't etc as long as you go through the motions of church attendance etc. It's very appealing to those of entitlement and for those who want an easy way for social acceptance which religion provides besides the ones who are attracted to it to better their ethical lives, i suppose. I've talked to some people who were religious that seemed sincere and it seems that the concept of a 'deity' and 'ethics' are tied together in their mind/wiring for some bizarre reason. once that 'god' bulb goes off then the 'ethics and compassion' bulb does too or vice versa. i have no friggen idea why they are like that but anywoo. Religion definitely has some serious problems when it comes to ethics because it can't alienate or disenfranchise people too much to be so strict that most people could not qualify when you need them to feel a part and accepted for them to be even willing to cooperate at any level or not turn against society but then there is the problem with it being so lax that it is nothing more than a group based on entitlement and fantasy. It is the most abused in terms of allowing people of ill character and actions a socially acceptable pass because god is forgiving. if god is forgiving, what does ethics mean anyways? it's a choice they can make when its convenient which is what is appealing.

Religion and its institutions are failures at ethics because of the level of most humans and their ability to be ethical which is low, and it really does not matter as all is excused as long as they ask god for forgiveness so that is what you have. Another problem with some religions and religionists is they feel that they should not have to anwer to the law as it's 'man-made' and depending on what they have done, they can find justification for anything based on primal in the old testament as well as the koran etc. So it's a buffet that will appeal to any group or type of individual to justify anything with the only common thing being they will all go to heaven.

It will have to be and is government that enforces any real morals or ethics. and religion would be a social or cultural conditioning of some ethics in the society although not very well.

 

[Michael 345]

I've thought the ' problem ' with religion (of any flavour) is the exclusive nature of their claim to the supernatural

Any religion claim to the devine must be there's alone

I don't know of any religion which embraces the supernatural which is not blind to the obviousness of ALL supernatural beliefs are on a equal footing

None can be verified

None of the beliefs are stronger or weaker than any of the others

And there remains a deafening silence regarding my classification

I guess I can call myself as a religion of 1 which means there are 4,201 religions in the world now

Yes I will also call myself a Major Religion

After all from believing in the supernatural it is only a small step to megalomania and classifying yourself as a Major force in the religion business

 

[birch]

Or it can go the other extreme and you have results like this that can be used by religionists against so-called heretics but even without religion, people would have found justification to inflict these things just the same.

It makes you wonder where such vileness comes from in nature. Even animals are usually not this cruel or perverted consciously but nature is very vile. What are humans really? We tend to think evolution is some safeguard against savagery, yet humans are even moreso just able to manipulate it even more and we project that onto 'animals' yet whatever is driving nature. I always found it strange that there was always a disingenous connotation of 'evolution' somehow being so falsely self-congratulatory that makes any lifeform better than a predecessor in every way possible but forgetting that the degenerate as well as predatorial drive is just developing even more much like a virus or bacteria that mutates. Better how? The title is apt: they couldn't figure out plumbing but they sure knew how to inflict pain. Well, we see where their priorities were.

The universe, god/dieties, laws of nature, evolution or whatever, it really doesn't matter as there is something definitely fuked up about this place and you better not get too comfortable and see yourself as a travelor or visitor of this universe. the best thing that can happen to this universe is it all ends one day because i doubt with building blocks and laws of nature that produce such heinous things is not a place i would call really 'home'. And even if humans could or would ever get to a place to artificially extract this from our existence, it still does not change that fundamental truth and what this place is: the fact it would even still have to be manipulated even for good. that means ourselves, our nature. how this universe works left to it's own devices we know is not good. ultimately, changing our genetics. ultimately defying the universe and taking control of it to define our destiny and rewriting it.

And to give religion, despite it's capability to be used for any agenda or purpose, i will give it it's one neutral due and most powerful clue: if this universe was so good, then why the hell would there even be a need/desire that thinking lifeforms form concepts such as religion to wish to leave this place to go to a better one which they call heaven?? the truthful answer is there wouldn't be so ultimately it's the universe's own fault because it's a horrible place with a vile deficiency and/or capability.

Even psychology knows that the worst experiences in life are the ones most seriously branded in one's psyche not the best and for good reason as a defense mechanism because the worst experience is showing you closer to the bottomline so you keep aware, even if it could be worse or better. The way it works is no matter what 'good' exists, if there is evil that exists that is worse, that is more truer to it's nature of whatever you are dealing with because of it's harm, the worse case scenario and if the uiverse's worst case scenario is that hideous or worse, IT CAN'T EVER BE TRUSTED REALLY.

 

[Michael 345]

The way it works is no matter what 'good' exists, if there is evil that exists that is worse, that is more truer to it's nature of whatever you are dealing with because of it's harm, the worse case scenario and if the uiverse's worst case scenario is that hideous or worse, IT CAN'T EVER BE TRUSTED REALLY.

You should be aware that good and evil are subjective terms and do not exist in a objective sense

If you carried out a survey of the terms used between the best good and the worst evil you would finish up with the Bell curve of goodness/evilness

This to my thinking reinforces the concept the Universe is totally oblivious of us

I agree there seems to be no reason why such evil extremes are present within humans

Co-operation is a much better survival strategy method

Perhaps what we call evil actions performed on one's own kind is the extreme tip of the survival of the fittest

 

[Sarkus]

Hence you are without God, and that's what atheist means, regardless of you reason's, self-identification, or personal preferences.

For the umpteenth time, that is not what atheist means, as explained. It is what it used to mean, but no longer does. To say that atheist means "without God" is to assert that everything supposed to have four legs is a dog.

You are without God, is the reality.
I believe in God is the reality.
You just don't like your position put like that. But that is what it is.

For the umpteenth time, this isn't about my position but about your misuse of the term "atheism" by including everyone who is "without God".

So what is your understanding?

That "lack" and "without" have no inherent implication of the need for the thing to actually exist, an implication you insist upon.

You claim to lack belief in something that currently does not actually exist, in any way, for you.

It does exist for me as a concept. So it is not true to say that it does not actually exist "in any way" for me. And it is also somewhat meaningless, as JamesR has expressed, to talk about "exist for you" and "exist for me". We are talking about the actual existence of God, not our subjective viewpoint but on the objective reality of it.

That means you are capable of lacking belief in nothing. I don't believe you do.

First, I'm not concerned whether you believe me or not. You simply choose to believe what you want to suit your own ends. If you don't like what someone says you simply say "I don't believe you".
Second, if you use "lack" as I use it, could you honestly say you believe in something that you didn't know whether it existed or not? If so, some examples, please.

It simply boils down to 'God does not exist'.

If that was my position I might agree. But it's not, so I don't. Maybe if you listen to what people say and don't reject as a lie everything they tell you that doesn't fit your blinkered caricature, we might get somewhere.

You may intellectually conclude that you don't know whether God exists, or not. But you do so because currently, God does not exist, as far as you're aware.

As far as I am currently aware, I can't say that God does exist. I also can't say that God does not exist. You want to put it in black and white, and only seem capable of seeing it in such terms. But it really isn't. I can no more say that God does not exist as I can say that God does exist. If you mean do I live my life as though God exists, then the answer is still that I no more live my life as though God does than as though God does not. If you are of the opinion that if I thought God exists that ours be performing some identifiable activity then I am likely absent that activity, and as such you may think I live as though God does not exist.

I agree that you are without God, and from that stems all your other stuff.

Yet this is not true for all those who are "without God". You said yourself that when you forget God you are "without God" and thus it can not be true that all those "without God" follow the same path to "all the other stuff". My atheism (lack of belief that god(s) exist) stems from my agnosticism. My atheism is an intellectual position. It undoubtedly informs my practical position in many things, and if you wish to think it is because I am "without God" then that is your prerogative. Yet you can not reconcile your views regarding me with others you consider are "without God", such as yourself when you forget God.

I don't know what you're trying to say. The quote you're responding to is very straight-forward. It only needs a straight-forward response.

The response is straightforward, Jan. If you can't comprehend it then it might help explain your predilection for the fallacy it explains. So let me make it simpler: You repeatedly commit the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Dogs are dogs.

Thats not what I asked.
Are dogs supposed to have four legs?

Now, are you without God?

I lack belief that god(s) exist, but I do not hold the belief that god(s) do not exist.

You've explained nothing, you simply assert it, so you don't have to go any further.

Do you believe God exists? Yes, you do, you have already stated as much.
When you forget God, are you "without God"? Yes, you have stated as much.
Thus, boy your own admissions, there exist people who are "without God" yet believe that god(s) do exist.
Thus there are those "without God" who are not atheist (modern usage).
QED.
Still need the dots joined up for you?

Put a pipe in it Sarkus. That's nonsense, and you know it is.

So your entire argument against it really is "you're wrong!" Way to go, Jan. Any chance you can, you know, actually provide more than just an argument from confidence? Or is this really all you have?

''The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God''
Being without God is your choice.

And now you insult me and all atheists. Nice.
And furthermore you are being yet again inconsistent with a previous argument that agreed that being atheist was not a choice.
You are nothing but consistent in your ability to be inconsistent.

If there is ''zero evidence'' of the existence of something, then for all intent and purpose, that something does not exist. Get over it.

"For all intent and purpose" is a practical matter. I don't deny that from a practical position I appear to live as though God does not exist, especially if you are of the opinion that living as though God does exist necessitates some identifiable activity (which I am absent of). But atheism is an intellectual position that informs the practical. It is an ontological matter of what we believe or not.

Do you know of any atheist that live their lives as though God exists?

Actually, yes. I know a priest who no longer believes in the actual existence of God yet still teaches and preaches because he considers it a worthwhile job to do, and he's actually rather good at it. I think his view is that God is the pinnacle of human constructs, and the concept alone is worth believing in. But technically he is atheist: he lacks belief that god(s) exist.

I know why you're atheist.

You certainly think you do, that much is clear.

How is categorizing the atheist as 'being without God' a strawman of a caricature?

Characterising atheist as being "without God" is one thing, but that's not all you're doing. You're taking your view as the atheist being "without God" to mean that all those without God are therefore atheist.
Further, you are not actually discussing with the atheist why they are atheist. Instead you take your view that the atheist is "without God", ignore everything else the atheist says, and view atheism now only as "without God". You have created your strawman. When you hear the term "atheist" you don't hear what the person says but you hear only "without God". You have taken what you see as the one property and focused on that alone. It is thus a caricature.

...

 

[Sarkus]

You're without God, because God doesn't currently exist, you can't believe in something that does not exist.

Yet you could not-believe-in something that does exist. I.e. You are still committing the fallacy of affirming the antecedent. Just because P leads to Q does not mean that whenever you have Q it must have been preceded by P.

I'll interchange. I'm not fussed.
I've told you I accept your personalized preferrence, I don't mind. But as far as you're concerned, God does not currently exist, and as such you are without God. That is either a fact, or it isn't.

If you accept the modern usage then please desist from arguments equating atheism to the original usage.
If you wish to say that all atheists are "without God" that is your argument to make, but note that this does not mean that all those "without God" are necessarily atheist - and you have been given examples to support this.

I'm not talking about human. I'm talking about atheist.
Now are you going to use this as yet another aversion.

Given that it speaks directly to your continued use of the logical fallacy, your refusal to engage is the only evasion.

You admit that you are without God.

To clarify: I admit that I lack belief that god(s) exist. It is you who claims that I am "without God".

Which means that God does not exist for you.
You can call it 'lack believe in God's existence' if you like.
But it is what it is, at its core.

I will call it what it is. If you wish to argue that it stems from being "without God" then what is it that differentiates me (who lacks belief that god(s) do not exist) from those who are "without God" yet who do believe that God exists (such as you when you forget God)?

I wouldn't go up to them and argue anything of the sort.

Then please desist from the same with atheists.

What I'm saying is that regardless of any other name, they are 'homosexual', as that describes their sexuality.

In this analogy you are referring to them as "gay" and meaning happy and bright, the original mending of the word they self-identify with.

In the same way you are atheist, because you are without God. You may not want to see it that way, but that is a fact.

That you want to explore, or moreover assert, the root cause of atheism is one thing, but you are not just doing that but instead ignoring the actual label as used, and then arguing your strawman of atheism meaning "without God" rather than modern atheism being merely a subset of those "without God".

You can define yourself how you like, but you cannot dispute that the original meaning is the root cause of atheism.

The original meaning is a descriptor, itself no more a root cause than "breathing" is the root cause of the inhaling and exhaling of breath. The original meaning of atheism could describe practical activity, thought processes, ontological positions, or simply an insult for a disagreement of viewpoint on religious matters.
If you mean that modern atheism is derived from the actual absence of believing in God, or perhaps from God not being "within us" or some other actual causative agent, then please clarify. For as it stands you are simply using one label as a cause for another. You may as well say that the root cause of the colour orange is the fruit. The ancient Greeks had a rather different view of gods when the phrase was first used, and being "without God" undoubtedly had a very different meaning to the one you are now trying to assert for it.

From there you may conclude that there is no evidence for these concepts of God, but you perceicve God in that way (different concepts) because God does not actually exist for you, and therefore you are without God.

Or maybe I am "without God" because God does not exist for me, for you, for anyone?
And what do you even mean by "without God"? And what do you mean by "exist for me" and "exist for you"? Surely God either exists or he does not? Everything else from that objective reality is then simply a subjective viewpoint. Is that what you are referring to, our subjective viewpoints? If so, who are you to claim your is any more correct or accurate than anyone else's?

No you don't.
Does God exist for you, as you read this. No? Then God doesn't actually exist as far as you're aware.
Simples.

Now you conflate practical matters (being aware) with intellectual ones (belief).
Our intellect is able to extrapolate beyond what we can experience, so while one can inform the other they are differentiable viewpoints. What might necessarily be a black and white viewpoint in practical terms might not be in intellectual.

I can't show you evidence, because for you God does not exist.

One could argue that many things don't "exist for me" yet I can be shown them. Evidence for those things exist. Why not for God?

The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God.

Is repetition of the insult meant to stop it being an insult?

If God doesn't exist, there is no evidence to be had.

Correct, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

To ask for evidence of God, is to justify you're own position.

I'm not the one asserting that God exists. You are, yet you make excuses for not being able to support that position. My position is that I do not know if God exists or not. If I don't know whether unicorns exist or not and someone claims they do, how is asking for evidence of unicorns an attempt to justify my agnostic position???

You seek closure. Not evidence.

Everyone seeks closure in their search for answers, Jan. It is the nature of inquiry. People don't generally ask questions to get vague or evasive responses. Evidence is not a conclusive answer, sure, but it is better than no answer at all.

So, you can only show me evidence (or what I would consider evidence) of God once God does exist for me. Well, let's put aside the fact that at that point there would be no use for the evidence, as God would already exist for me...
Why can't you (or why are you unwilling to) even detail what you consider to be evidence?
And what are you prejudging how I will view what you put forth?
Is your attitude here what your brand of theism generally results in, or are you the exception?

True, but your comprehension hails from the position of being without it, while others have it.
Such comprehension will always fall short of the real thing.

And there you are with the prejudging again. You make all the sounds of wanting to discuss but always fall well short of that one important aspect: actually discussing. Instead you come up with excuses why such things can't be discussed, why it is futile, useless, pointless, why we wouldn't understand, or why we wouldn't see it your way, without ever actually listening, only responding to your preconceived strawman view of the atheist.

So I ask again: why do you bother posting here?