In regards to atheism.

[Michael 345]

You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.

Mantids are scary down under, eh?

Love the quip

Land sharks and drop bears are worse

Come out of the water at night and attack the little people in the garden

Lost a lot of Garden Gnomes to land sharks

 

[Jan Ardena]

Saying that one person is without a personal God doesn't mean that you are with one.

Agreed.

The atheist position is generally that they have not yet been convinced there is a god. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim to justify it. So it doesn't matter if we don't know whether evidence for a god exists somewhere.

What the atheist isn't aware of is that you don't realise God by being convinced by someone.

Secondly, I am making no claim. Theos = God, ATheos = without God .
Although I do believe in God, God's existence is not being claimed, and even if it inadvertantly does come up, it is not an important aspect of my point.
If I can't convince you, or prove that God exists, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it simply means I can't prove He exists. Plus you know that you don't have to be convinced
by any theist proposal. So the whole idea of burden of proof, when it comes to God, is yet another diversionary tactic of the atheist, to justify his position.

Again, doesn't matter. We are looking for evidence of it's existence, not a revelation of god itself.

It doesn't matter how you will know that the evidence presented, does in fact point to God?
That's brilliant SP! You've just confirmed something that I have always thought to be true about atheists. They're not even bothered about God.
The word 'atheist' perfectly describes you.

Hell no. I wouldn't worship that monster.

Another one! Boy you're full of revelations today. Aren't you?
I like talking to you because you don't really care about the whole God thing, so you just blurt out what you really feel.
Whereas the others try to play mind games so as not to reveal the reality of what it is to be atheist.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ad hom. Invalid.

No it's not an Ad hom.
It is true, you only accept points, and arguments that fit with your worldview.

Do you think it is possible that you are completely unaware of God, while others are easily aware of Him?

If you had a case, you could make it, regardless of anyone's worldview.

You say NO ONE can be certain of anything, then when you get called out, you then say that you can be certain of not being certain?
You're obviously writing the script as you go along. Pathetic.

We are humans and fallible. How about you explain to us how you can "know" that God exists?

It doesn't matter how I know God exists, because it will go over your head. What matters is that God does not currently exist, for you. This is why you are atheist.

No, you really haven't. As has been pointed out by others, you've spent a tremendous amount of time dodging and evading its nature.

I have painstakingly explained it over the years. But as I said, it is pointless explaining it to someone for whom God does NOT exist.
What we need to do is focus on the atheist. The atheist is very clever. They've been in these arguments from God knows how long. Yet they don't have a clue what they are actually arguing against. They very cleverly lead us to believe there are two sides to this coin, by engaging us in discussions about the existence of God (even Jesus isn't safe), as though it is really important.
We get caught up, a lot of peope even start to have doubts, all for what? You don't have a clue, I'm just calling you out on it.

You'll happily waste your time here spinning all sorts of evasions, such as it "just is!"

I'm not wasting my time here. I'm on to something.

But actually put your money where your mouth is? No.

You don't have the courage of your convictions.

Says him who hasn't a clue about God.
What do you know about my convictions?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think you and a few others must have blue faces from the endless ?discussion?

Stop acting as though you're bored. I know you're not.
You just don't like what I'm talking about, and you would prefer it to go away.

There are a good number of threads you can engage in. You don't need to look at this one (if it's so boring).
But you will look at this one, because of what I'm discussing, because you can't help it.
So stop complaining!

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They do do more: they enquire about yours as well, asking you to explain and clarify.

I explain mine mostly within the first few sentences, as they are reletively simple.
The rest of the time I spend trying to get them to look at what I've already written.
The problem is, you/they can't let it go, you have to control, and you have to win. When you lose on both counts
you get abusive, when that doesn't work you start to make hints that the person (whom you can't beat) is a troll, and other such accusations.
The best way to argue with you guys is to keep it simple, and stick to that simplicity.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

What the atheist isn't aware of is that you don't realise God by being convinced by someone.

Then how is this accomplished? If you weren't reasoned into it, there isn't much chance that you can be reasoned out of it.

Secondly, I am making no claim. Theos = God, ATheos = without God .
Although I do believe in God, God's existence is not being claimed, and even if it inadvertantly does come up, it is not an important aspect of my point.
If I can't convince you, or prove that God exists, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, it simply means I can't prove He exists.

Your claim is that people are simply with it or without it. I wonder why you place reason in such low regard, and why you are personally convinced that you are with god, without a good reason to believe so.

It doesn't matter how you will know that the evidence presented, does in fact point to God?

Evidence on the question of god's existence can be evaluated as to it's reliability. An experience of being "with god" wouldn't necessarily convince me, since I have had such experiences on drugs, and I still don't believe them. I think the feeling that you are with a "higher being" is a normal facet of being human. I'm guessing it has something to do with being a well developed intelligent social creature, where large parts of our brains are devoted to the formation of models of other brains.

You've just confirmed something that I have always thought to be true about atheists. They're not even bothered about God.

Yup, not bothered. Interested, though. Open to evidence of a reliable nature. I am mostly concerned with the impact of god beliefs on society.

Another one! Boy you're full of revelations today. Aren't you?
I like talking to you because you don't really care about the whole God thing, so you just blurt out what you really feel.
Whereas the others try to play mind games so as not to reveal the reality of what it is to be atheist.

How is the concept not monstrous? If it feels good, he's not showing you everything.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then how is this accomplished? If you weren't reasoned into it, there isn't much chance that you can be reasoned out of it.

One can be convinced that God makes sense, but you have to realise God for yourself.

Your claim is that people are simply with it or without it.

No it isn't.

Your claim is that people are simply with it or without it. I wonder why you place reason in such low regard, and why you are personally convinced that you are with god, without a good reason to believe so.

What a bag of assumptions.

Nothing in this segment applies to me.
I suggest you control your emotions.

Evidence on the question of god's existence can be evaluated as to it's reliability.

How would such reliability suggest God exists?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

No it's not an Ad hom.

You attempt to invalidate the argument by attacking the validity of the arguer.
That's an ad hom.

An an ad hom is an evasionary tactic - it avoids simply laying out a logical and fact-based argument for analysis.

It is true, you only accept points, and arguments that fit with your worldview.

Yes. My worldview only accepts logical arguments, not fluff like "God Is!", "I just know!" and "He's in my heart". These are irrational, emotion-based feelings. Great for campfire talks, but this is a discussion forum and your ephemeral mysteries are not acceptable arguing points here.

 

[DaveC426913]

What do you know about my convictions?

It is obvious that you doubt them. That is why you are being so evasive about particularly probing questions.

When asked to actually put your money where your mouth is, you say 'I don't have time to show evidence of God. Go look on the internet.'

If your evidence were ever brought out of the mysterious fog in which you like to hide it, your convictions would be quickly dismantled. You know this.

 

[Baldeee]

I explain mine mostly within the first few sentences, as they are reletively simple.

Rarely do you explain.

The rest of the time I spend trying to get them to look at what I've already written.

If they queried it the first time, why would simply getting them to look at what you have written resolve the query.
If I tell you that x+y=z and you don't understand, what use is it me telling you to have a look at what I have written?

The problem is, you/they can't let it go, you have to control, and you have to win.

Can't let what go?
Your inability to explain your position properly, consistently, coherently?
And the only thing people are interested in "winning" is the holding of a sensible discussion.
Why can't you manage that?

When you lose on both counts you get abusive, when that doesn't work you start to make hints that the person (whom you can't beat) is a troll, and other such accusations.

Everything is a battle for you, isn't it.
You see it as nothing more than theist v atheist, and in doing so you group all atheist under the understanding of atheism that you have, seemingly irrespective of accuracy.
As for those that accuse you of being a troll, to quote from an enjoyable film (to me at least):
"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him in the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk, but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle." - The Rabbi (Ben Kingsley) in Lucky Number Slevin.

The best way to argue with you guys is to keep it simple, and stick to that simplicity.

But you don't keep it simple, Jan.
You keep it inconsistent.
You keep it vague.
You keep it elusive.

At least I hope you enjoy the war you clearly think you're fighting, Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

How would such reliability suggest God exists?

Reliably existent is a property of the real.

 

[karenmansker]

Reliably existent is a property of the real.

Yeah . . . . IMO, like Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity, etc. . . . reliably existent, though yet to be observed or proven . . . not unlike atheists' opinions of God!

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah . . . . IMO, like Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity, etc. . . . reliably existent, though yet to be observed or proven . . . not unlike atheists' opinions of God!

Science doesn't have faith in those concepts. Some are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence. Unlike god.

 

[karenmansker]

Science doesn't have faith in those concepts. Some are supported to a greater or lesser degree by evidence. Unlike god.

IMO, perhaps . . . . . many (or your hedge - 'some') scientific arguments have been/are promulgated without definitive evidence, but simply by consensus and emotion. May depend on what 'evidence' means (or what "is" is -W. J. Clinton paraphrase HA!) . . . i.e., does 'evidence' = Observation? Inference? Probability? Opinion? An example might be: "Is climate change (or global warming - not the same?) caused mainly by man's activities?" Maybe yes, if one relies on concensus and emotion. Maybe not, if one relies on geologically-historic factual data.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

IMO, perhaps . . . . . many (or your hedge - 'some') scientific arguments have been/are promulgated without definitive evidence, but simply by consensus and emotion. May depend on what 'evidence' means (or what "is" is -W. J. Clinton paraphrase HA!) . . . i.e., does 'evidence' = Observation? Inference? Probability? Opinion? An example might be: "Is climate change (or global warming - not the same?) caused mainly by man's activities?" Maybe yes, if one relies on concensus and emotion. Maybe not, if one relies on geologically-historic factual data.

Well, there's the Scottish consensus that unicorns exist as it is the National Animal.

I've seen one with my own eyes too! They can swim pretty good.

 

[karenmansker]

Well, there's the Scottish consensus that unicorns exist as it is the National Animal.

I've seen one with my own eyes too! They can swim pretty good.

Well, if you've 'seen one with your own eyes' that must make it true! And, thanks for the additional info - I did NOT know that they could swim!! . . . .WOW!! (BTW: IYDNKO, this is a humorous post!)

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah . . . . IMO, like Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Gravity, etc. . . . reliably existent, though yet to be observed or proven . . .

Some of those things - such as quantum gravity - will never be proven* because it is not scientific to do so. Quantum gravity will always be a theory, never fact. It is a model that describes what we observe, and it will live and die based on how well it describes our world. But that will never be "proof".

* while others, such as black holes and dark matter might one day be directly observable. That would be proof enough.

not unlike atheists' opinions of God!

No rational person thinks that it will ever be proven that God does not exist. The non-existence of something cannot be proven.

 

[karenmansker]

Some of those things - such as quantum gravity - will never be proven* because it is not scientific to do so. Quantum gravity will always be a theory, never fact. It is a model that describes what we observe, and it will live and die based on how well it describes our world. But that will never be "proof".

* while others, such as black holes and dark matter might one day be directly observable. That would be proof enough.



No rational person thinks that it will ever be proven that God does not exist. The non-existence of something cannot be proven.

Dave, I agree (WTF!?) . . . . I too, have 'faith' that with improved observational capabilities and technical developments, we might one day directly observe the 'others' (see your *, above), including the current Quantum gravity hypothesis! BTW: Beer w/straw, as per DaveC's, I have even seen models of unicorns!! (<--humor here!)

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, I agree (WTF!?) . . . .

OK. Stop the internet. Get a techie up here, stat.

 

[spidergoat]

IMO, perhaps . . . . . many (or your hedge - 'some') scientific arguments have been/are promulgated without definitive evidence, but simply by consensus and emotion. May depend on what 'evidence' means (or what "is" is -W. J. Clinton paraphrase HA!) . . . i.e., does 'evidence' = Observation? Inference? Probability? Opinion? An example might be: "Is climate change (or global warming - not the same?) caused mainly by man's activities?" Maybe yes, if one relies on concensus and emotion. Maybe not, if one relies on geologically-historic factual data.

Scientific arguments that are made without definitive evidence are called hypotheses. It doesn't undermine science to say that these kinds of arguments are just preliminary to establishing a theory, and should not be taken on faith. Your suggestion that climate change is based on a consensus about emotion is projection. You don't want it to be true because it would somehow jeopardize your worldview, so you deny the evidence and hide your intellectual weakness in such uncertainties that remain.