Immaterial
Why?
Have you any definite
Not really. No.
Jan
Immaterial
Have you any definite
I believe in Satan who is a god so I am not without god
Am I
Have you any definite answer?
- atheists (not believe in (without) god the white robe version) or
- thesist (believe in (not without) god but 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?
Not really. No.
A-Theos
without - God.
Sorry mate, there are no modern terms that can mean anything other than without God. It is the actual translation.
I know that it describes every single atheist'position regarding God. It is the only definition that does.
Does not and never has
So you believe God exists for every atheist?
Immaterial
That is not the same as saying that God does not exist. But that distinction must be clear to you by now.Not dogmatic, just your natural position., which is you don't believe in God.
Yes, in the sense that you use the words "believe in" to mean trust, have confidence in, etc.Which is the reason why they do not believe in God.
No. It's evidence of rational thinking. Feynman said you should first check that you're not fooling yourself, because you are the easiest person to fool.The fact that you hold to the idea that there should be external evidence of God's existence, is evidence of dogma.
Not believing that God exists stops me from comprehending what God is? How so?It stops you from comprehending what is God.
Atheism and theism have nothing to do with belief? Wrong, Jan. They are exactly about what people believe or do not believe.It's got nothing to do with belief.
God does not exist as far as you're aware.
Unless He does, and your not saying.
Because you give the word a meaning that suits modern sensibilities does not mean the actual meaning of the word has changed. "Wicked" still means evil/morally wrong, despite its modern usage, which depicts it as brilliant.
If that's the case, then this God of yours is capricious. Why would he choose some people to perceive him over others? It seems a petty and pointless game for an all-powerful being to play.Do you think it is impossible that a theist can perceive God, and an atheist can't?
According to the meanings.
Useless, Jan. Different people use the same words in different ways. If you think your usage is important, you need to explain what it is.I use lack, the way it is defined
Nobody knows, Jan. Including you.Does God exist as you read this response.
No?
Then just say so.
So if we accept that there should be external evidence for the existence of apples, say, then are we putting ourselves on the same level as apples? Is that presumptuous of us?You accept that there should be external evidence of God, as a criteria for accepting Him. IOW you put yourself on the same level as God.
Or not.If I forget God, I am without God, because I don't rely on God, I rely on my senses. At those times I don't believe in God.
At some point, I might hear, read, or discuss something which reminds me that God Is.
They lack the special magical God-perception apparatus that theists are blessed with, I guess.The atheist is in a position where for him/her God does not currently exist as far as they are aware. There is no reminding the atheist that God Is, because they cannot comprehend, or perceive God.
The atheist refuses to accept he is without God when the theist tries to sneak in the assumption that God exists into the term "without God", as you so obviously do.The atheist refuses to accept that he/she is without God because it implies that God does exist, but the atheist is unable to comprehend Him, while the theist can.
About whether God exists? I certainly hope not.Are you saying you and all atheists do not fool yourselves?
It must be hard for you to understand the atheist perspective. Because God is so important to you, you assume that God must be important to everybody. Thus, everybody must have the question of God buried in an essential part of their being - in their deepest innermost heart. And atheists, having the cold, hard hearts that they do, are rejecting the wonder and magnificence of His Almighty Being.The verse does not mean that you have simply decided that there is currently no God. It means something way deeper. You have said this in your heart. It is a part of the fabric of your current existence.
You've got things almost completely backwards.But an atheist is so because he/she is without God. Atheism is the intellectual reasons one gives for being an atheist.
You could try listening as atheist after atheist explains to you what he or she sees as the "root cause" of his or her spiritual position. Then you wouldn't end up looking so silly as you struggle to make sense of it under your own set of operating assumptions.What? Do you think you are so complicated that we can't figure out the root cause of your spiritual position?
The change is called the Humpty Dumpty effectActually, when the usage of a word changes, it does mean that the actual meaning of the word has changed.
You are nice, Jan, and not very silly or facetious at all, and definitely not a pedant. What you respond with is in no way awful or artificial, and I certainly wouldn't judge your arguments to be last. And I strongly doubt that you are a villain.Because you give the word a meaning that suits modern sensibilities does not mean the actual meaning of the word has changed.
I don't claim to speak for atheists in general, because atheists make a diverse crowd. The opinions I express here are just my own particular take on atheism.
I agree with you. To hold a position on a question such as the existence of God, you need to understand the concept you're talking about, and you need to have considered the matter and made a conscious decision as to where you stand on the question. If you ask somebody "Do you believe in God?" and they say "What's God?" or "Goo goo ga ga?" or "I've never really thought about it" then I don't think it's fair to then label them "theist" or "atheist". So, there are no baby atheists in my world.
I am somewhat interested in what you regard as "atheist assertions".
The history of atheism as an idea is a largely Western tradition, so its interaction with Christianity is understandable. Also, atheism as an acceptable "practice" is generally more available to those in Western cultures than elsewhere at present. But many atheist philosophies actually date back at least to the ancient Greeks, with Epicurus being a particularly influential thinker.
This seems reasonable.
There are no doubt some atheists out there who reject belief in God dogmatically.
Personally, I identify as a skeptic of all dogmatic claims, including, of course, religious ones.
And I see agnosticism as more a question of method than belief, which was how that term was originally intended. I'm somewhat partial to the idea that one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, and I would put myself in the former category.
I don't much like this one.
"Denial" seems to imply that God exists but atheists are stubbornly refusing to recognise that fact.
Ooh - I see what you did there! Very clever, baldeee.You are nice, Jan, and not very silly or facetious at all, and definitely not a pedant. What you respond with is in no way awful or artificial, and I certainly wouldn't judge your arguments to be last. And I strongly doubt that you are a villain.
That is not the same as saying that God does not exist. But that distinction must be clear to you by now.
Not believing that God exists stops me from comprehending what God is? How so
Atheism and theism have nothing to do with belief? Wrong, Jan. They are exactly about what people believe or do not believe.
And yes, God does not exist as far as I'm aware. You're reduced to stating the obvious now.
We have videos of flying UFOs but no flying crossesWhat is it that distinguishes proper religious objects from hypothetical super-powered space aliens?
What justifies our falling on our knees and worshipping the former and not the latter?
A spectacular light show in the sky or lightening on a cloud-enshrouded mountaintop in Sinai shouldn't be enough.
It does if people use the word to communicate and the word is understood as intended. Words gain new meanings quite regularly, and as older meanings become archaic and die out the new meaning becomes prevalent and accepted.Because you give the word a meaning that suits modern sensibilities does not mean the actual meaning of the word has changed.
Eh? I referenced JamesR to highlight that i concur with his criticism of your continued use of "exists for me" and "exists for you", so your comment here is... odd. But never mind,So what if JamesR has talked about it?
I've talked about it as well.
Any such perception (or lack) is no indication of God's actual existence or not, though, as perception is a subjective viewpoint.Do you think it is impossible that a theist can perceive God, and an atheist can't?
According to the meanings.
No, you use it in a restrictive sense. The definition does not exclude the lacked thing not actually existing, as you assert.I use lack, the way it is defined.
I neither accept God exists nor do I accept that God does not exists.So you accept God exists?
As far as I am currently aware I am unable to tell whether God does exist or not. Start from the actual root, Jan, not the strawman you're more comfortable with.As far as you are currently aware God does Not exist. Unless He does. Start from the root Sarkus.
If that was my position then you might be on to something, Jan. But it isn't. I do not know if God exists or not as I read your response. I can no more say God does exist than God does not exist.Does God exist as you read this response.
No?
Then just say so.
Your inability to comprehend the agnostic, Jan, does you no favours when you simply resort to such pathetic comments.Typical sitting on the fence nonsense.
So you accept God but still think you can be atheist? Interesting. So what is it that enables you to accept God whereas other atheists can't?The difference is I accept. God, even though I sometimes forget Him. You don't accept God (for whatever reason).
I put myself on the same level as no one but myself. I simply accept that for me to currently accept anything as existing there needs to be some evidence of that thing actually existing. I may change this view although I can not detail anything that might lead me to.You accept that there should be external evidence of God, as a criteria for accepting Him. IOW you put yourself on the same level as God.
I don't know. You assert it of me, and I'm reasonably sure that whatever you consider to be "with God" does not describe the way I feel or act. If one of the prerequisites for being "with God" is to believe that God exists, and to believe in God, then I am not "with God".Are you without God?
I wonder if you're going to keep ignoring what people actually say and simply argue against your strawman caricature?I wonder if you're going to keep avoiding this question?
But at all time you have the belief that God exists, and simply need to be reminded. Further you are not being reminded that "God is" but simply that your world view is one where "God is" is a subjective truth.If I forget God, I am without God, because I don't rely on God, I rely on my senses. At those times I don't believe in God.
At some point, I might hear, read, or discuss something which reminds me that God Is.
So you assert.The atheist is in a position where for him/her God does not currently exist as far as they are aware. There is no reminding the atheist that God Is, because they cannot comprehend, or perceive God.
Except the special pleading you apply to atheists who are later reminded that God is, right?Why?
Because God does not currently exist. Hence, from all perspectives the atheist is without God.
No, being "without God" does not imply that God does exist. It may to you because you use some restrictive version of the word, and it may to others who, for sake of argument, use the term in the same manner you do. But if God does not actually exist then we are all without God, even those that believe God to exist, even those that believe in God. And what they consider to be "with God" is simply to be with something they think they can perceive, and which they think has an influence upon them.The atheist refuses to accept that he/she is without God because it implies that God does exist, but the atheist is unable to comprehend Him, while the theist can.
I am saying that to call someone a fool without backing up that claim is an insult. To call someone a fool for being different to you is to elevate yourself above them with regard that difference, and to do so without backing up that claim is disrespectful and insulting.Are you saying you and all atheists do not fool yourselves?
Eh? Please can you clarify exactly what you think is not a choice? Your sentence here is coming across as garbled.That God doesn't currently exist for you, hence you believe that evidence that points to God's existence, will actually prove that God exists, is not a choice.
Irrespective of how deep you think the decision may go, calling someone a fool is still calling someone a fool. Now, are you going to support that claim or are you going to let the insult lie there?The verse does not mean that you have simply decided that there is currently no God. It means something way deeper. You have said this in your heart. It is a part of the fabric of your current existence.
So you keep asserting. Yet your own arguments are inconsistent with this assertion: you claim you are atheist when you "forget God" but then you assert a that there is also a difference between you and atheists in that you then remember that "God is".But an atheist is so because he/she is without God.
No, one is an atheist if atheism is one of their philosophical positions, specifically their position with regard their belief (or lack thereof) in the existence of deities. If you adhere to the philosophy of atheism (that is, the lack of belief in the existence of god(s)) then you are an atheist.Atheism is the intellectual reasons one gives for being an atheist.
When you discuss in a philosophy forum then I would suggest the onus is on you to educate yourself on the matter, at least to the point where you are able to converse without the need to change meanings of words to suit yourself that go against the pervading meaning.I'm not big on ism's.
And there you are again with the No True Scotsman fallacy, reinforced by an "oh, you wouldn't understand."How does this equate to him living his life as though God exists.?
Actually that's a pointless question as you yourself are currently without God.
Being "without God" might not change in meaning, but "atheist" has! This is what you are refusing to accept. That is what this is about, so your focus on the meaning of "without God" is simply a red herring to avoid facing the issue.Of course they are.
Why would the meaning of being without God change over time? Being without God means just that,. So if you are without God, then you're an atheist. Get over it.
It does not change because you want it to. It is what it is.
No, Jan, you've built up a caricature strawman and now refuse to listen to anything that doesn't reinforce what you already assert.Nope I have taken the root cause, and now I understand why you are the way you are regarding God.
I'm sure you think you've figured everything out, Jan, but the answer "without God" is no more an answer than "God did it" is an answer to other questions.What? Do you think you are so complicated that we can't figure out the root cause of your spiritual position?
Any such perception (or lack) is no indication of God's actual existence or not, though, as perception is a subjective viewpoint.
Do you think it is impossible that people can perceive something to exist that doesn't actually exist?
No, you use it in a restrictive sense. The definition does not exclude the lacked thing not actually existing, as you assert.
I neither accept God exists nor do I accept that God does not exists.
As far as I am currently aware I am unable to tell whether God does exist or not.
But it isn't. I do not know if God exists or not as I read your response. I can no more say God does exist than God does not exist.
So you accept God but still think you can be atheist?
So what is it that enables you to accept God whereas other atheists can't?
Furthermore, you have categorically stated that there is evidence of God. That everything is evidence of God. So the issue of evidence can not be key here, but rather why some perceive this evidence to be of God and some do not.
I don't know. You assert it of me, and I'm reasonably sure that whatever you consider to be "with God" does not describe the way I feel or act.
if God does exist, then who am I to say that I am not as much "with God" in exactly the way that God wants me to be, and that to be "with God" is nothing to do with belief but simply in being the person God wants?
No answer to my question
No problem
No obligation
So I can pick apart my own post without fear of contradiction
Start
I believe in Satan who is a god so I am not without god
Am I
Atheists seems to get a √ straight off BUT a very narrow definetion restricted to only not believing in a specific god version
- atheists (not believe in (without) god the white robe version) or
- thesist (believe in (not without) god but 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?
Cross atheists off the definetions
Theist seems to be √ing more boxes give this a provisional yes
Satanists another provisional yes
Without nope cross off
Mixure yes
So I am in essence a thesist satanists
I can go with that assessment
Anybody object?
Settled
Good questionWhy don't you start a new thread with this nonsense?
Jan.
But at all time you have the belief that God exists, and simply need to be reminded.
But here you are now differentiating yourself from being atheist.
You asserted previously that you are atheist when you "forget God" but you are now arguing that "there is no reminding the atheist that God is".
But if God does not actually exist then we are all without God, even those that believe God to exist, even those that believe in God. And what they consider to be "with God" is simply to be with something they think they can perceive, and which they think has an influence upon them.
Unfortunately you are unable to demonstrate in any way that what you claim to comprehend is anything more than simply a claim, that it has any actual existence beyond your own imagination, an imagination self-enforced through adherence to an a priori assumption.
Eh? Please can you clarify exactly what you think is not a choice? Your sentence here is coming across as garbled.
Irrespective of how deep you think the decision may go, calling someone a fool is still calling someone a fool. Now, are you going to support that claim or are you going to let the insult lie there?
So you keep asserting. Yet your own arguments are inconsistent with this assertion: you claim you are atheist when you "forget God" but then you assert a that there is also a difference between you and atheists in that you then remember that "God is
And there you are again with the No True Scotsman fallacy, reinforced by an "oh, you wouldn't understand."
I'm sure you think you've figured everything out, Jan, but the answer "without God" is no more an answer than "God did it" is an answer to other questions.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if you honestly think they have meaning in and of themselves, and actually answer anything.
Good question
Have you got a good answer?
Probably not. Let's put it this way: I live my life as if God does not exist (apart from as a concept that people like yourself believe in).You can say or not say what you like.
God does not exist for you.
Relying on external evidence to decide if I accept God stops me from comprehending what God is?No. Relying on external evidence to decide if you accept God.
You're presuming to tell me why I am an atheist now. How arrogant of you. May I suggest, then, that you believe you are "with God" because you have created a comfortable fantasy for yourself. Not that you are a theist and come to the conclusion that God exists, or whatever variation you spin.You are an atheist because you are without God. Not that you are an atheist and come to the conclusion that God does not exist, or whatever variation you spin.
It seems to me that your capacity to enter into an honest discussion in good faith about our respective beliefs left you some time ago. Now you're just repeating a kind of mantra as proof against the evil atheists.Therefore God does not exist is your actual position. Now that is stating the obvious I agree.