In regards to atheism.

[Sarkus]

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

So what do you think it takes to realise God?

Secondly, I am making no claim. Theos = God, ATheos = without God .

You make claims all the time, Jan. You just don't seem to be aware you are doing so. With your "definitions" here, even, you are claiming the existence of God as fact. What you seem to lack, though, is the ability/willing to identify the implications of what you type, but rather you work on the basis that if you haven't explicitly stated something then you haven't stated it at all.

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.

God's existence is being claimed. You claim not to be an atheist, you claim atheists are "without God" for which your usage of the term "without" implies the existence of that thing. Thus you imply that God exists. This is a claim. By you.

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.

The question then is how do you prove to yourself that He exists? Or do you perhaps just blindly accept God, not actually knowing if He exists or not?

Plus you know that you don't have to be convinced by any theist proposal.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the first line of his post: "What the atheist isn't aware of is that you don't realise God by being convinced by someone." Now you are claiming that atheists do in fact know that they don't have to be convinced. I hate to bring this up again, Jan, but you are woefully inconsistent with your arguments.

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.

And thus you fail to comprehend the atheist position, Jan. Sure, you have built your caricature strawman, and proudly beat up on it, yet actual atheists are just looking on and shaking their head with pity at the sight.
The issue of burden of proof is not a diversionary tactic, Jan, but rather it stems from the very position you claim to understand about atheists. The only reason you see it as a diversionary tactic is in an attempt to wash the issue away so that you don't have to face it.
Sure, you feel that proof is not an issue for you, that you can't prove things to the atheist, but that doesn't alter that the issue being a valid one for the atheist. You don't get to dismiss it as merely a diversionary tactic when it stems from the core of the atheist mindset: why have belief that something is fact when there is no convincing evidence for it.
Maybe if you weren't so preoccupied with your strawman atheist you might consider indulging in a discussion with actual atheists, and not treating them all as having the single viewpoint or property of your strawman.

Whereas the others try to play mind games so as not to reveal the reality of what it is to be atheist.

Does your arrogance know no limit? So atheists don't all fall into the mould of your strawman, thus we are clearly playing mind games?

You have no interest in discussion, Jan. As others have pointed out, to you it is just a war. You create conflict and then run around like the victim. If people don't act or respond in line with your preconceived notions of how they should then you excuse it as irrelevant, or mind games. And at worse you simply accuse the most of lying.

You have no interest in discussion, Jan, so - as has been asked before of you - why do you bother posting here?

 

[Jan Ardena]

You make claims all the timI e, Jan. You just don't seem to be aware you are doing so. With your "definitions" here, even, you are claiming the existence of God as fact. What you seem to lack, though, is the ability/willing to identify the implications of what you type, but rather you work on the basis that if you haven't explicitly stated something then you haven't stated it at all.

So do you. You claim that unless there is external evidence that convinces you of God, God probably doesn't exist. IOW God doesn't exist unless....
You imply that external evidence CAN possibly provide evidence of God.
You imply that you can know that God exists upon revelation of such evidence.
You imply that it is not possible for God to be known to theists, and unknown to atheists.
I'll leave you with that for the time being, but I have a bag of claims that you make, and have made.

There is no claim that God is a fact, only that God Is.

God's existence is being claimed. You claim not to be an atheist, you claim atheists are "without God" for which your usage of the term "without" implies the existence of that thing. Thus you imply that God exists. This is a claim. By you.

I don't claim that atheists are without God, their label does that. I merely accept that label as correct based what I have experienced..
Like I said some posts before, elephants, stars, and newspapers exist, God Is. It is the atheist who queries existence. Unfortunately theists have got
caught up in the atheist mindset. We should stop.

The question then is how do you prove to yourself that He exists? Or do you perhaps just blindly accept God, not actually knowing if He exists or not?

Existence, and proving such, is your thing. It is how you remain fixed in your position. Allude to something that will never happen, and in that way you are blissful in your position.
I don't have prove God to you because God doesn't exist for you.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the first line of his post: "What the atheist isn't aware of is that you don't realise God by being convinced by someone." Now you are claiming that atheists do in fact know that they don't have to be convinced. I hate to bring this up again, Jan, but you are woefully inconsistent with your arguments.

Don't worry, I'm aware of you obfuscatory tactics.
You don't have to accept anything anyone says regarding God. It's that simple Sarkus.

And thus you fail to comprehend the atheist position, Jan. Sure, you have built your caricature strawman, and proudly beat up on it, yet actual atheists are just looking on and shaking their head with pity at the sight.

Firstly, it's not a strawman. It is the literal meaning of the label you don, and furthermore it fits not only you, but every single atheist.
It is the only definition that is universal. You can shake your head in so called pity, and break out in a bout of denial if you like, but that meaning is no strawman.

The issue of burden of proof is not a diversionary tactic, Jan, but rather it stems from the very position you claim to understand about atheists. The only reason you see it as a diversionary tactic is in an attempt to wash the issue away so that you don't have to face it.

You can't prove something to anyone, that doesn't exist.
God does not currently exist for any atheist, hence there is nothing to prove.
Simply accept that God does not currently exist for you. I'm okay with that.

You have no interest in discussion, Jan, so - as has been asked before of you - why do you bother posting here?

Obviously I have interest in discussion, lest I wouldn't be here discussing.
You have to turn on me, because you have nowhere else to go, and you're certainly not going to concede, as you have too much pride.

I post on here because I enjoy talking about God.

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

There is no claim that God is a fact, only that God Is.

Whoa! That stood out right there. It's like walking to the edge of nonsense then now you decided to jump into the depths.

God Is what?

 

[spidergoat]

There is no claim that God is a fact, only that God Is.

Same thing.

 

[spidergoat]

You imply that external evidence CAN possibly provide evidence of God.

I don't know that it's possible. God could be such a nonsensical concept that it makes no sense that there would be evidence of it.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't have prove God to you because God doesn't exist for you.

Which means that god has no influence on his life, which means that god isn't omnipotent, which means it's not a god. Are humans so powerful that they can negate any action by god all by themselves?

 

[Sarkus]

So do you. You claim that unless there is external evidence that convinces you of God, God probably doesn't exist. IOW God doesn't exist unless....

Once again you demonstrate that you lack comprehension of the atheist position. There is no "God doesn't exist unless...", there is merely "I don't have the belief that God does exist unless...".
Further, while some atheists conclude that "God probably doesn't exist", I am not one. I simply have nothing upon which to base an assessment of probability, so can not assert any probability.

You imply that external evidence CAN possibly provide evidence of God.

No, I assert that I don't know whether evidence CAN provide evidence of God or not. You, on the other hand, assert that it does: along the lines of "if God is the cause of all then everything is evidence of God" etc.

You imply that you can know that God exists upon revelation of such evidence.

No, I have only ever asserted that I might possibly know that God exists upon revelation of such.

You imply that it is not possible for God to be known to theists, and unknown to atheists.

No, I have never implied this either. It is entirely possible that God, in his mysterious ways, only becomes known to theists. I simply do not know. I don't believe it to be the case, but nor do I believe it is not the case. I assert that I do not know.

I'll leave you with that for the time being, but I have a bag of claims that you make, and have made.

Well, you're zero for four at the moment, so I hope you do better with your next batch.

There is no claim that God is a fact, only that God Is.

I'm fairly sure you're the only one here who can't see that claiming "God is" is to assert that God exists, and thus that God is a fact. Are you going to start playing your redefining of words again?

I don't claim that atheists are without God, their label does that. I merely accept that label as correct based what I have experienced..

Therefore, by deduction, you claim that atheists are without God.
This is yet another case of you being unwilling to take responsibility of the implications of what you say, only for what you explicitly say.
You claim the label atheist means "without God".
You "accept that label as correct based on what I have experienced".
Thus, by simple deduction, you are claiming atheists to be without God.
Now take ownership of your own arguments, your own implicit claims, or, with all due respect, just quit this place.

Like I said some posts before, elephants, stars, and newspapers exist, God Is. It is the atheist who queries existence. Unfortunately theists have got
caught up in the atheist mindset. We should stop.

Please, Jan, do stop. Do us all a favour before we get contaminated with your utter nonsense. First, this thread is "regarding atheism" - so unless you are willing to actually engage with atheists on the issues they raise then all you will do is stroke your own strawman.

Existence, and proving such, is your thing. It is how you remain fixed in your position. Allude to something that will never happen, and in that way you are blissful in your position.

Yet you can prove to yourself that God exists, while using the same "evidence" we atheists see no link to the necessity of God. So what is the difference? Is this where you pull out your trite "without God" answer?

I don't have prove God to you because God doesn't exist for you.

Non sequitur. What you mean is that you think you can't prove God to atheists because you think God doesn't exist for atheists.

Don't worry, I'm aware of you obfuscatory tactics.
You don't have to accept anything anyone says regarding God. It's that simple Sarkus.

There's nothing obfuscatory about highlighting your inconsistencies, Jan. But I note that you fail to actually address the criticism, or clarify your position, but instead simply try to deflect. I really shouldn't expect anything more, I suppose.

Firstly, it's not a strawman. It is the literal meaning of the label you don, and furthermore it fits not only you, but every single atheist.
It is the only definition that is universal. You can shake your head in so called pity, and break out in a bout of denial if you like, but that meaning is no strawman.

No, Jan, the only thing that fits every atheist is that they lack belief that god(s) exist. You may try to argue that this is because they are "without God", but that implies that God exists, which you can't demonstrate, prove, or even provide adequate argument in support of. Instead you simply to revert to "that's because you are without God". You do nothing but excuse your own position from interrogation.
But you are wrong in that it is very much a strawman. You cherry-pick attributes from what various atheists say and slap them to your caricature. You argue against that caricature, the strawman. This is evidenced by your zero for four efforts above. You struggle to comprehend the agnostic atheist mindset. Your strawman is the only thing you do understand, but it has limited applicability to the reality of atheists.

You can't prove something to anyone, that doesn't exist.

I know. Can you prove God exists? No? One reason may therefore be because God does not exist, right?

God does not currently exist for any atheist, hence there is nothing to prove.

Non sequitur. Just because Jake Walkinshaw does not exist for you does not mean that there is nothing to prove should you wish his existence to be proven to you.

Simply accept that God does not currently exist for you. I'm okay with that.

Why should I accept a position that does not match my mindset, my thought process? Are you going to accept that God is simply a subjective viewpoint with no actual objective reality? I'd be okay with that if you wish to do so.

Obviously I have interest in discussion, lest I wouldn't be here discussing.

You're not discussing. That much is patently obvious. As Baldeee has observed you turn the issue into a warzone. You take a defensive position and shoot from the hip, despite the willing of others to engage in peaceful dialogue. You therefore create hostility which you then stoke at every opportunity, especially when you have nowhere else to go.

You have to turn on me, because you have nowhere else to go, and you're certainly not going to concede, as you have too much pride.

I don't turn on you, Jan. I turn on what you say, because it is inconsistent, fallacious, obstructive, evasive, and belligerent. There is also nothing yet to concede, as irrespective of what I actually say you simply revert to your strawman. Perhaps when you demonstrate that you can do more than that...?

I post on here because I enjoy talking about God.

Yet you don't engage in the actual discussion. This thread is about atheism yet you seem unwilling to engage with what atheists actually say, but rather just stick to arguing against your strawman. If you sincerely want to do more then demonstrate it.

 

[Michael 345]

God Is what?

Thor

God is Thor

He of the Cape and Big Hammer which only he can lift

Paid up member of the League of Justice

 

[Sarkus]

It moved for Cap'n America, though. Even if just slightly.
Where do you stand on the matter of Loki? Is he merely a pretender, or one of the pantheon?

 

[Michael 345]

It moved for Cap'n America, though. Even if just slightly.
Where do you stand on the matter of Loki? Is he merely a pretender, or one of the pantheon?

Loki?

To dark good looking

Pretender

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You dudes must have immersed in theology hardcore.

 

[Michael 345]

You dudes must have immersed in theology hardcore.

Sometimes the Lightly Dark Side has advantages

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I'm going to explain one more time. You can consider what you like, but God does Not currently exist as far as youre. aware (your own admission)

You're correct that as far as I'm aware God does not currently exist.

... which is why you require evidence in order to accept.

I require evidence because I prefer my beliefs to be grounded in something real. I'm a rationalist. I believe in reason, and therefore evidence.

The only alternative would be to hold irrational beliefs.

You're sure that there is currently no evidence of God's existence. Aren't you?

Again, you've failed to read what I wrote, or else you choose to ignore it. I said there is evidence that people put forward to argue for God's existence, but it is very weak and subjective.

Of course, if you claim that everything is God, then the fact that anything exists counts as evidence for you. But then you're not really talking about God; you're simply redefining the term "God" to mean "the universe", in effect. I agree with you that the universe exists.

Hence you must be sure that external evidence could be available.

We're talking about an all-powerful being here. I think he could choose to make some evidence available if he existed. Don't you?

Do you think it is possible that God exists and you are currently in able of comprehending Him?

God, being an omnipotent being, would necessarily be incomprehensible to any human being, theist or atheist.

What you're really suggesting here is that I'm somehow unable to perceive God - I lack the required "God sense", or something.

And, yes, that's possible. Who knows, maybe this all-powerful God of yours has Created me in such a way that I am unable to perceive him. Maybe he did that to punish me for sins in a past life, or something. It's all possible. Just very implausible.

Yes this is my demonstrable definition of the term' atheist'.

Tut tut, Jan!

You chopped off half of what I wrote there. That's dishonest of you. So, go back and assemble the full quote, and try responding to that, including the half you don't like. Don't just pretend it wasn't there.

I'm saying, there is Theos, and ATheos.
There is God, and there are those who are without God. From my perspective, that is what I see.

According to you, we're all God, or parts of God. Isn't that right? How, then, can anybody be "without God", according to you?

It is a concept. You cannot live your life by or through it.
If you live as though God does not exist, you're an atheist, or in the case of a theist, atheistic.

For a "true" theist, like you claim to be, God plays a very significant role in their life. They think about God. They act with God in mind. They pray to God or otherwise worship him. They "live their life by their belief".

Atheists obviously don't live their lives by God, because they don't believe in God. They might well be interested in the "big questions" of existence, but for them God is not the answer (or is only one possible and unproven answer). They don't spend their time in worship or prayer. They don't worry about what the invisible man in the sky might think about their actions; their morality is (possibly) based on something other than fear of punishment or a need to please an authority figure.

Atheists don't, by and large, have recurring thoughts like: "I'm buying fish and chips right now. But God probably doesn't exist." They don't live their lives by their belief that God (probably) doesn't exist. The theist, on the other hand, might well think "I'm buying fish and chips right now. And that's good because God will approve of my not eating red meat on a Friday" or whatever.

You and Sarkus have this habit of thinking because you repeat something, I must accept it, and move on. We'll here's the thing. I don't agree with you. So either attempt to explain it in a another way, or act by you own standard and accept what I have repeated and move on.

I agree with what Baldeee wrote regarding this, above.

You don't need to accept points on which you disagree, Jan. But you do need to discuss things in good faith, if you are to have a productive discussion at all. Ignoring points that don't fit your narrative isn't discussing things in good faith. Never attempting to justify your own position is not discussing things in good faith.

I think you're right on one thing, though. Unless good faith is forthcoming from you, the best option for me might well be to move on an cease engaging with you.

A person who is without compassion cannot comprehend compassion as it is. Why? Because you have to have compassion to know what it is. It is true that compassion, as it is, exists for those who have it, and it does not exist for those that don't.

No, that's wrong. A person who is without compassion can understand what compassion involves. He or she simply does not feel compassion. Similarly, an atheist can understand what belief in God involves. He simply does not believe in God himself. Nor does he feel God's presence, or whatever, and I think that kind of feeling is a central part of the God experience for many theists.

Also, you're committing your usual fallacy again here by asserting that there's "existence for you" and "existence for me", without acknowledging the element of objective existence. Compassion objectively exists as a phenomenon, regardless of the fact that some people lack compassion.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

I don't believe I am replying to you, I know I am. The question of your existence never, ever, comes into question.

Nonsense. You would never believe you were having a conversation with someone who did not exist.

God is the embodiment of existence. God Is the reason we exist in this form.

You're back to defining the universe to be God.

If God is different from the universe, you need to explain the sense in which God is different from the universe, or from you or me. And you need to tell us how we can find this God and see that he is distinguishable from the universe.

Elephants, and newspapers exist.

To say God (merely) exists, is to put God on the same level as other things that exist.

Yes, it is.

Existence is an all-or-nothing thing. Either you've got it, or you ain't got it. So, if God exists, he exists in the same way that newspapers exist. And if he doesn't exist, then his non-existence is the same as the non-existence of my great Aunt Hermoine.

There aren't "levels" of existence. It's a binary concept.

Outside of comprehending that theists exist, you don't seem to understand anything about God, or belief in God.

I disagree. In fact, as you know, I have had direct personal experience of believing in God. So I have a fair idea what that's like. Compare, if you like, your "compassion" example. Never mind that you're wrong on that, but even on your own terms I can understand belief in God. Because I've been there.

I think you need to really embrace the fact that as you are without God, you are only privy to conceptualising God, and belief in God.

You can currently go no further.

I'm happily embracing the idea that I don't believe that God exists right now, Jan - quite successfully, I think!

But I have a problem with your "without God" terminology for reasons I've explained at length above. I don't embrace the idea that God exists and I'm merely rejecting him (for reasons unknown to myself) or that God exists and he's specially made me so that I can't detect him. In the first instance, I really am open-minded about the whole God thing; there's no reason for me to reject God, especially if he's as obvious as you say he is. In the second instance, there seems to me to be no rational reason why this God of yours would go to special effort to deny me the wondrous experience of Him that you have. Ah, but then God works in mysterious ways, perhaps?

Anyway, if I'm stuck, I'm stuck, I guess. I can go no further, as you say. Does that mean God has failed with me? I mean, it's not my fault I don't believe in him, as far as I can see. He could do a much better job of it if he really wanted me to believe.

How do you evaluate the evidence?

I'm not going to attempt to teach you Critical Thinking 101 in this thread, Jan. Sorry.

Currently, as far as you are aware, God does not exist (even though it is not the be all end all), so you obviously have evaluated the evidence.

My other question is, at what point in the evaluation process did you decide that God does not (probably) exist?

At the end of the evaluation process!

Actually, to tell you the truth, Jan, my conclusion is only provisional. I've already told you that. I'm quite willing and ready to change my mind if new and convincing evidence comes to light at any point.

A lot (most?) of my personal beliefs are like this. I strive for epistemological consistency, wherever possible.

Nope. All atheists are without God. This means they don't believe in God, for whatever reason. FACT.

If that's all it means, then I'm cool with that.

But I still have that niggling feeling that you really want "without God" to mean "they don't believe in God, yet God exists". That "God exists" part is tacitly contained in your "without God", as I previously explained. God has to exist in order for atheists to fail to believe in him, according to you.

I'm sure you may agree with me when I say, you idea does not mean God does not exist, only that for you, God does not exist. You can't think that to be a universal right. Can you?

I do think that if God doesn't exist, then God universally doesn't exist for everyone, regardless of whether they happen to believe he exists. That is, God's existence or non-existence is universal. There's no "existence for you" vs "non-existence for me". We've been through that.

You're atheism imports the assumption that God does not exist, for whatever reason.

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that the default assumption for the existence of any X is that X probably doesn't exist. That's the starting point. Then, if there's evidence that X does exist after all, we go from there.

No, in the sense that atheists don't have an a priori conclusion that God does not exist. The conclusion is not "imported" - that would be putting the cart before the horse. Investigating the question honestly demands that we keep both possibilities open at the start - that God exists, and that God does not exist.

It matters to everyone that they are correct.

To some people more than others. And about some things more than others.

 

[Michael 345]

I lack the required "God sense", or something.

If you carry on you missed out a "o" in the god word

Have good sense and become a Thesist Thorian

 

[Jan Ardena]

Whoa! That stood out right there. It's like walking to the edge of nonsense then now you decided to jump into the depths.

God Is what?

Sorry you feel that way about it.

In this case "Is" is used as a verb.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Same thing.

Not really. A fact must be known, or proved to be true.
God is the source of our ability to know, and to discriminate. God is the source of that we wish to know.

I don't know that it's possible. God could be such a nonsensical concept that it makes no sense that there would be evidence of it.

What is your reason for being an atheist?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which means that god has no influence on his life, which means that god isn't omnipotent, which means it's not a god. Are humans so powerful that they can negate any action by god all by themselves?

This is what it means to be without God.

Jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Sorry you feel that way about it.

No worries. I can commit suicide - like elephant tranquilizer 10 000x more potent then heroine - I feel sorry for myself enough from peering into the incongruity.

 

[Baldeee]

There is no claim that God is a fact, only that God is.

Same thing.

Not really. A fact must be known, or proved to be true.
God is the source of our ability to know, and to discriminate. God is the source of that we wish to know.

So you don't know that God is?
If you know (or even if you just claim to know) then you are claiming "God is" to be a fact.
Since "to be" means "to exist", you are thus claiming "God exists" to be a fact.
So enough already of your claptrap!
The efforts you go to in your desire not to have to acknowledge your inconsistencies are remarkable, even if the end result for you is simply to reveal the depths of nonsense you are prepared to plummet to.

Now if only you focused that effort on being consistent in the first instance.
It might save you from having to post the utter catastrophe that you do.