You are all currently without God, Dave.
Do you agree?
Isn't God, or God's existence at the core of both theism and atheist..
For me God exists, for you He doesn't.
We begin our inquiries from those points of view.
Jan.
In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
You are all currently without God, Dave.
Do you agree?
Isn't God, or God's existence at the core of both theism and atheist..
For me God exists, for you He doesn't.
We begin our inquiries from those points of view.
Jan.
I've converted
No longer believe in Satan
I now believe in Thor
I believe in Thor who is a god so I am not without god
Am I
- atheists (not believe in (without) god the white robe version) or
- thesist (believe in (not without) god with the big hammer) or
- Thorist (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?
Wrong about what? God might exist?
So God doesn't currently exist, but you might be wrong. If God doesn't currently exist, then you are without God, because God does exist for others. Are you saying the others could also be wrong like you?
If so, on what basis do justify the claim that they could be wrong?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. It has not been established that God exists in any objective way.
I/we think it probably doesn't, but we acknowledge that it is possible that it does.
You cannot acknowledge that it is possible that God does not objectively exist.
When you say God exists "for you", that is a subjective internal belief that has nothing to do with an objective existence.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
None of us can agree with that statement because it is poorly formed.
It is akin to this:
"You have finally stopped beating your wife. Do you agree Jan?"
See, the statement being asked for agreement contains a hidden implication. It is actually two questions in one; yet only one answer is requested. There is no appropriate yes/no answer to the question, as formed.
Yes.
"Yes, you were beating your wife, Jan, and have stopped?"
No.
"No, you have not stopped beating your wife, Jan?"
You are a theist in the broadest sense in as much as you believe that god(s) exist.I've converted
No longer believe in Satan
I now believe in Thor
I believe in Thor who is a god so I am not without god
Am I
I annoint myself a high priest of the thesist Thorist movement
- atheists (not believe in (without) god the white robe version) or
- thesist (believe in (not without) god with the big hammer) or
- Thorist (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?
Some would argue that you are not an actual theist because it you don't actually "believe in" Thor.
You are a Thorist, if this is meant to be the equivalent nomenclature to, say, Christian, but perhaps Thorian is better?
You are an atheist with respect to all the other gods that you lack belief in.
And it's "theist" not "thesist", unless you're referring to people who believe in the existence of theses as the supreme power in the universe (which my ex-tutor would have likely agreed with you on). But perhaps these people would be better referred to as thesisists.
What do you mean by "without God", Jan?
If someone is not "without God" are they therefore "with God", or is there some middle area?
If you claim all atheists are "without God", and that being "without God" defines the atheist, then are all non-atheists to be considered "with God"?
Who says?
If someone can say they believe in their god without proof because for me Thor just is
I can run with both and thanks for the suggestion
Yes my spelling is bad and the checker can throw up either and often I'm half asleep when posting
May be but think of minority group of lispers and how it would upset them 
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
What does it mean for you to be "with God"?
Can you explain that?
How do you conceive of the difference between somebody who is "with God" and somebody else who is "without God"?
It's not about being 'with God', that comes through practise. God just Is.
An atheist is a person that does not, for whatever reason, acknowledge God. A theist is a person that does.
Jan.
In that it assumes God exists? Yes.
If I claim you are without compassion, it assumes compassion exists. Compassion does actually exist to all those who have it, but not to the person who doesn't.
Jan.
If you are not "without" something you are, by logic, "with" that thing; if you are not "with" then you are "without". Are you suggesting that there is a gap between being "without" and being "with"?
Does your semantic garbage know no bounds?
It's not about being 'with Thor', that comes through practise. Thor just Is.
An atheist is a person that does not, for whatever reason, acknowledge Thor. A theist is a person that does.
Hope that also helps
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is actually preaching, which is against forum rules.
Once or twice, not a big deal, but it has become the core of your argument.
"Propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising: ...to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument. Examples include preaching one’s own religion as the only true religion.... The signature of propaganda is that it consists largely of a member expressing strongly held personal beliefs about things that can’t be proven..."
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
You are always insisting that atheists are "without God" For example, post #581 where you wrote: "You are all currently without God, Dave."
So my question to you is - what are you contrasting the state of being "without God" with? What's your alternative to being "without God"? (Presumably the state of being "with God".)
That's what you still need to explain.
What sort of "practice"? And what exactly is this practice supposed to accomplish?
Is some sort of idea in the devotee's head? Is the ultimate source and ontological foundation of reality itself? Or what?
What does your phrase "acknowledge God" mean? What is one doing when he/she 'acknowledges God'? What is it that you believe the individual is acknowledging?
Last edited:
If Jan is right, conversion to religion isn't possible.
Jan Ardena:
Tell me how it is that you know for sure that God exists. It isn't by rational reasoning. And it isn't a "gut feeling" or a feeling "in the heart". And you tell me it isn't magic.
So, how do you know that God Is?
It seems to me that once you've eliminated your brain and your feelings, not much is left to work with as a source of knowledge of this God of yours.
The atheist position is that God (probably) does not exist, so there is nothing to reject other than some theist fantasies.
Do you claim to be "with God"? You seem keen to distinguish "God Is" from being "with God". I suppose by that you mean to distinguish the supposed objective existence of God from a theist being the "correct" kind of theist who has "practiced" enough to be worthy of being considered Godly, or "with God".
For you, there is God, there are theists who are "with God, and there are atheists and presumably some theists who don't pass moral muster and are "without God".
But you are confused.
No atheist is an atheist because God does or does not exist. Atheists are atheists because of what they believe about God's existence.
The same goes for theists. You, Jan, are not a theist because "God Is". You are a theist because you believe that "God Is".
See the difference?
I wonder whether this tendency to believe you have certainty about things you can't possibly know carries over to many other aspects of your life. We've encountered one other example of this with you in the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, but that doesn't impact on your everyday life. This God thing, on the other hand, no doubt has a huge impact on your life. I wonder what other things you feel absolutely certain about, despite the fact that you really don't know about them.
What you need to do, if you want to make progress, is to honestly consider the question of how you know that God exists, or, more accurately, whether you actually know that. You've got to get beyond your gut-feeling reaction to the question.
You know, Jan, I get a lot more out of what you don't say in your posts than what you do say. It is the questions you refuse to answer, the questions you try to deflect with more questions, the questions you pretend aren't there, that are the most telling about your position.
From now on, I want you to try to separate out the sense of being "without God" because you don't believe in him from the sense of being "without God" because he doesn't objectively exist. Those are not the same things. Here's why:
It is possible for an atheist to be "without God" (not believe), despite the fact that God exists ("God Is").
It is equally possible for a theist to be "with God" (believe in God), despite the fact that God does not exist ("God Is Not").
I hope the distinction between God's objective existence and what you believe about that is now clear to you, and we can move on.
Then correct my misconception.
Tell me how it is that you know for sure that God exists. It isn't by rational reasoning. And it isn't a "gut feeling" or a feeling "in the heart". And you tell me it isn't magic.
So, how do you know that God Is?
It seems to me that once you've eliminated your brain and your feelings, not much is left to work with as a source of knowledge of this God of yours.
And so are you, if God doesn't exist.
And yours, if God doesn't exist.
No. I think you're trying to define God into existence. And it's not working.
Your assumption is that God exists and atheists reject him.
The atheist position is that God (probably) does not exist, so there is nothing to reject other than some theist fantasies.
Do you claim to be "with God"? You seem keen to distinguish "God Is" from being "with God". I suppose by that you mean to distinguish the supposed objective existence of God from a theist being the "correct" kind of theist who has "practiced" enough to be worthy of being considered Godly, or "with God".
For you, there is God, there are theists who are "with God, and there are atheists and presumably some theists who don't pass moral muster and are "without God".
But you are confused.
No atheist is an atheist because God does or does not exist. Atheists are atheists because of what they believe about God's existence.
The same goes for theists. You, Jan, are not a theist because "God Is". You are a theist because you believe that "God Is".
See the difference?
No. It's because we require external evidence in order to make a rational judgment about what it is reasonable to believe.
And so are you - if God doesn't exist.
Nobody is censoring you, Jan.
The same way that I evaluate the likelihood that anything is true. I think about it. I consider all the knowledge I have about the thing. And I try to reach a rational position on the matter.
Because you don't have perfect knowledge. I know you think you do, but you don't. You're dangerously over-confident.
I wonder whether this tendency to believe you have certainty about things you can't possibly know carries over to many other aspects of your life. We've encountered one other example of this with you in the "brain in a vat" thought experiment, but that doesn't impact on your everyday life. This God thing, on the other hand, no doubt has a huge impact on your life. I wonder what other things you feel absolutely certain about, despite the fact that you really don't know about them.
It says I haven't taken your "leap of faith" and started to pretend I know stuff I don't know.
This is a discussion, Jan. You decided to make it about definitions. You are very keen to define atheists in the way you do because that definition helps you to preserve the illusion that "God Is". It absolves you from grappling with the real issue. You just go along merrily assuming that God exists, and you can explain away atheists as merely misguided people who choose to deny God.
What you need to do, if you want to make progress, is to honestly consider the question of how you know that God exists, or, more accurately, whether you actually know that. You've got to get beyond your gut-feeling reaction to the question.
Why could you not bring yourself to address the question I asked there?
You know, Jan, I get a lot more out of what you don't say in your posts than what you do say. It is the questions you refuse to answer, the questions you try to deflect with more questions, the questions you pretend aren't there, that are the most telling about your position.
No. You have it backwards. I am "without God" (in the sense of not believing in him) because of my conclusion that God probably doesn't exist. But there's a separate issue that you do not address. Both of us are "without God" (in the sense of God not being present to be "with") because God doesn't exist.
From now on, I want you to try to separate out the sense of being "without God" because you don't believe in him from the sense of being "without God" because he doesn't objectively exist. Those are not the same things. Here's why:
It is possible for an atheist to be "without God" (not believe), despite the fact that God exists ("God Is").
It is equally possible for a theist to be "with God" (believe in God), despite the fact that God does not exist ("God Is Not").
I hope the distinction between God's objective existence and what you believe about that is now clear to you, and we can move on.
It doesn't matter if you think God exists. God's existence or non-existence is independent of what you think about it.
What definition of with is who attending?
I can't figure that out.
The monotheistic construction I recognize by pretense of logic within theological systems essentially becomes panentheistic and without consequence. "God is", remains the only proper tautology about the monotheistic godhead of Abramism, for instance, and similarly applies to other monotheistic constructions by their nature of being monotheistic. That is to say, the term God becomes functionally meaningless. In this context the idea of being with God essentially means one exists, and the idea of being without God is something of an identity assertion. It's generally unsatisfying for evangelists. I can tell you that much.
And the only reason this particular construction matters on this occasion is that it offers up a context for the word "with" that, in truth, I'm expecting isn't the applicable one.
Still, though, the Sufis refer to an inner component of religion in the sense, as Kharkovli puts it, "that religion is often mainly an accretion of superficialities around an ancient core". The ancient core isn't God, but, rather, a way of looking at a divinely-inspired or infused will with practical eyes; it is, essentially, a way of relating to God that probably never really existed, something akin to regress in Riesebrodt's revitalization scheme. We see similar trends in less mysterious questions; Koontz, discussing marriage, recalls Kaler, whose comparative study of recorded oral histories suggests people tend to see some manner of better condition about marriage in their societies. That is to say, romanticist colorings of history as part of one's neurotic response to contemporary stressors.
The God of any given religion seems a filter or mask, an attempt to deliberately shape accretions that, in its own recursive metacontext reasserts artifice as nature, for what is synthesis. If God is a core, then how do the accretions allow us to express the otherwise ineffable? Sometimmes I think that's why they called it metaphysics, because every once in a while you get these stellar analogies: It's kind of like astronomy insofar as you can tell a lot about what is at the heart of all that shit out in the middle of nowhere by the fact that all that shit has gathered right there. Even before we could see the heart of the cloud, as such, we could tell a hell of a lot about what was inside just by looking at the dust and gas in veil.
I suspect we are attending a context of withness pertaining more to religion than God, a response dependent on how we feel about the accretions than the mystery they obscure.
And it's worth noting that unlike religion, you just can't have a mortal hand six million light years out feeding enough of a foreign element into the system to fool the scientists six million years later; in astronomy, the numbers just won't work out, and the artifice will be apparent. And the idea that we could create enough of an effect to fool someone way the hell out there in six million years, or whatever, is just kind of ridiculous. (Can we find enough iron to fool the alien astronomers?)
That point is important; the metaphysicians have a tremendous amount of influence over the metaphysics.
The chicken and egg argument goes to religion, but look at the pretentious results of metaphysics; Golden Dawn rituals are nearly practical jokes. Clavicula Salomonis is almost comedic if we stop to consider the fervent passion, the thrilling sense that they were somehow discovering. Even Newton was a Rosicrucian.
Still, in the relationship between metaphysics and religion, one common element is that the question of being with or without God doesn't really exist, because it doesn't really matter, without them.
God is. Religion makes it important enough to require atheism.
Atheism is. Postured as a quasi-religion, it is self-defeating.
What is it to be "with" God? Well, what are we doing with, "with"?
There is no contrast or alternative . God Is.
There is Theos , and ATheos.
Through religious practise.
I suppose you could say that
Learning more about God, yourself, and yourself in relation to God.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Rule violation: Preaching. Asserting a strongly held personal view as factual without providing evidence.