In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

I can tell I've rattled your cage. Who knows? Maybe you'll start to look outside it, eventually.

I wish you had.

It looks a lot like you need to do some work sort out the difference between subjective and objective reality, because right now you don't seem to be able to demarcate between the two.

"objective reality" means that reality exists independent of our minds.

Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events. All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person.

Pretty simple really.

This probably goes a long way to explaining why you take your own feelings to be evidence of an objective reality.

Where have I expressed that God exists as fact, meaning He can be observed, and poked about?

Where did I say that I feel God's existence, therefore God exists?

I notice you like to purposely distort what I say in your so called summation. A very nasty and dishonest tactic. So please quote rather than surmise, if you wish to continue the discussion.

As things stand, you believe you "just know" certain things because you feel them to be true. And - worse - you don't understand that you can't "just know" things about the outside world from your feelings alone.

I've put this here as an example of your nasty tactics. Please show quote.

Knowledge requires justification, Jan. And, in the end, you can't give any objective justification for what you believe about God. You just believe. You have lots of subjective reasons for that, but you don't acknowledge that anything more is necessary to justify a claim to knowledge.

As I've said before, there is no justify God to you at all. Why? Because you are an atheist. That means for you, God does not exist.

Now when something does Not exist, it means there is no inkling of that phenomenon. The only reason you are engaged in a discussion about God, is because other people experience God.
You are, as your suggests, without God.

You can squirm and distort all you like, but that is the reality.

Me: "How do you know that God exists?"
You: "It just comes 'naturally' to me. I just know it is true. This is a perfectly adequate explanation and it's true".

I nearly forgot this distortion.

You asked me where the awareness of God comes from, I replied that it is totally natural (which it is).

I know what you mean by exists. You mean like a rock, something that your gross mundane senses can observe.

I've explained what I mean by God's existence. But you can't accept that, you want me to show God to you, and if I can't you get to say, "therefore God doesn't exist.

But the reality is, God doesn't exist as far as you are aware anyway. You're never going comprehend God in your present condition (the fool doth say in his heart...)

. It probably feels like people are ganging up on you.

I don't mind, just be honest, and stop with the distortion.

Atheist are easy to argue with, especially when you use their label as it was intended, rather than the fuzzy designer, eternally changeable, meanings the personally choose for themselves.
Your sitting ducks.
Probably that's why I've got running around like a headless chicken, trying to patch up some of holes I've poked in your fantasy position.

That's because it is subjective.

Yes. To you.
Why? Because for you God does not exist.

You don't get to choose your own facts.

What "facts" have I chosen?

I'm surprised that you don't care whether other people know God, given that God is so important

Another distortion James.?
Who said anything about not caring?

Remember you are atheist.
That means God does not exist as far as you are aware.
So you have no idea how to inform people about God. You have no idea that it is best not to try and convince people, about God.
You have no idea that God Is, and as such is available for those who accept, and turn to Him.
This all lost on you James.

I guess if you aim here is simply to draw your line in the sand, then your work here is done. It's not a very open attitude to have, though.

I've already told you, but you don't listen.
I'm here for a chat. I enjoy talking God, or God-related stuff.
I must admit i enjoy watching you desperately trying to bring this discussion into the "Does God Exist" mode, because you can't reconcile being without God, as label correctly suggests.

Do you feel left out James?
Is it a case "if I am without God, then everybody is without God "

Critical, rational thought is quite important to me, which is why I take some trouble to try to convince you of its importance and relevance.

In reality, you trying to convince yourself that your weak position, is a strong one.
Your position is that you are currently without God, and no amount of intellectual waffle is going to change that.

In a debate, one is typically trying to persuade somebody of something, Jan.

It's not a debate, it's a discussion.
I'm explaining to you the original meaning of the term "atheist", and doing a pretty fine job of showing how it defines the realistic position of every single atheist. Period. And you are waffling on about God's existence. No need to I accept that God doesn't exist as far as you are aware. That is what the discussion is about.

I understand why you are so reluctant to tell us about your relationship with God. I understand why you consider that private and off-limits.

It's my prerogative. Correct?

Why do you think atheists choose to lock themselves off from engaging with your God?

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

Please don't shoot the messenger.

You need to work on your interpersonal skills as well as your reasoning skills.

That's strong coming from you James.
If want to get back to a civil discussion I suggest you quote me properly instead of distorting what I say. That is one nasty habit you have.

Still wrong, Jan. It means
I don't believe that God exists.

If God did exist, you wouldn't need to believe that God doesn't exist. So the root symptom which spawns other considerations, is that for you, God does Not currently exist.

The point of dispute is your insistence that God actually exists, and that you know he exists. The point of dispute is about the objective reality, not the subject experience each of us has.

That is neither the point of dispute, or the point of the thread. The point of dispute is the meaning of the term 'atheist'.
Does it mean what it is supposed to mean, or does mean anything that takes your fancy?

The subject Does God Exist, is a different subject. But you wish to bring it into this discussion to deflect away from your actual position.

I understand why you are uncomfortable. I really do. Perhaps if you weren't so dogmatic, I

That sounded about as sincere as you relationship with God.

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

I'm explaining to you the original meaning of the term "atheist", and doing a pretty fine job of showing how it defines the realistic position of every single atheist.

It doesn't describe my position. And from your point of view - your particular conception of your deity, which you have named God (and properly so, as it seems to belong in the Abrahamic category) - I'm atheist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It doesn't describe my position. And from your point of view - your particular conception of your deity, which you have named God (and properly so, as it seems to belong in the Abrahamic category) - I'm atheist.

What's so special about your position?

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Subjective reality

No such animal

Does not exist independent of the mind

The use of the word REALITY is a misnomer

Yes the electrical and chemical changes between the neurones of the brain operate is a reality

But those subjective thoughts generated from the reality of operating neurones

give value to real world situations or to memories of previous held situations

They do not give objective SUBSTANCE to those values in the real REALITY world

Better if Subjective Reality be

renamed Subjective Thoughts

 

[Jan Ardena]

Subjective reality

No such animal

Does not exist independent of the mind

The use of the word REALITY is a misnomer

Yes the electrical and chemical changes between the neurones of the brain operate is a reality

But those subjective thoughts generated from the reality of operating neurones

give value to real world situations or to memories of previous held situations

They do not give objective SUBSTANCE to those values in the real REALITY world

Better if Subjective Reality be

renamed Subjective Thoughts

Do OR and SR contradict each other?

This depends on your perspective.

If you begin from an OR perspective, then you would say they cannot both coexist. If OR is correct, then SR must be false. At best you’re able to adopt the mindset of solipsism within the larger context of OR, but you cannot fit the perspective of SR within an OR framework. To me, this is one of the major limitations of the OR model. OR rejects SR but can never disprove it, so OR inherently rejects a potentially valid perspective. It’s like saying, “I’m right and you’re wrong” just because I’m me and you’re not. This is a major failure of the OR model. If a model does not have a place for all potentially valid perspectives, it’s not a good model. Consequently, we can never fully trust this model because it could very well be completely wrong. If we base our decisions on this model, we could be making one inaccurate decision after another, but we’d never know it. It’s just too narrow for our purposes, like going through life with one arm tied behind your back.

The main exception where OR allows us to integrate a subset of SR is during our nighttime dreams. In this manner you would say your nighttime dreams are contained within the larger scope of OR, so you’re still a physical being sleeping on a bed having that internal mental experience when you dream at night. Anyone who’s experienced a lucid dream knows this perspective quite well. However, notice that when you aren’t fully lucid, you’re tricked into thinking that your subjective dream world is actually another OR world. You blindly accept that you’re the character in the dream, totally unaware that you’re actually the dreamer, and the whole world is contained within your consciousness. But of course you’re wrong, and you’ll never realize that until (1) you wake up, or (2) you become lucid within your dream. So how do you know you aren’t making this same mistaken assumption right now? Have you ever been lucid while awake?

Although OR can accept the subjective nature of nighttime dreams, it completely fails to account for the perspective of SR at the level of waking physical reality. If you subscribe to the model, it basically compels you to conclude that people who believe in SR are either mistaken or delusional — that is the nature of belief systems that reject other potentially valid perspectives. Hence… you can expect that I’ll continue receiving those “you’re a nutter” emails from OR subscribers, even though not a single one of them has attempted to prove SR wrong. Again, that would be impossible because SR isn’t falsifiable.

Now let’s consider OR from the perspective of SR.

An intelligent model of reality should account for all potentially valid perspectives, and SR does this very well. It does not reject OR out of hand. It simply puts OR at a different level. The objective world is the dream world, which is basically a simulation running within the larger consciousness that is you. By shifting to your first-person perspective and interacting with the simulation from the inside — which is admittedly a very seductive perspective to adopt — you can experience the perspective of OR within the larger SR context. If you’ve seen The Matrix movies, when the characters go into the Matrix and interact with it, they’re in the OR world of the simulation. Setting aside their enhanced physical abilities and the outside help they receive, their bodies are still otherwise subject to the laws of the simulation, just as your body is subject to the laws of this OR simulation.

From an SR perspective, OR simply describes the dream world properties, while SR is the perspective that knows it’s just a dream. These two perspectives can coexist without contradicting each other. This is much like playing a video game. You can identify yourself as the player outside the simulation or as the character within it. You might even be the person who programmed it too. All these perspectives are valid without contradicting each other.

Neither OR nor SR are falsifiable, so you can’t prove either of them wrong in an objective sense. However, in a subjective sense, the experience of SR from the inside and the way it accounts for OR seems much more logical to me than OR’s outright rejection of SR. SR allows for the potentially valid perspective of solipsism as well. Consequently, I find the larger context of SR to be more accurate.

Would you agree that it makes sense for a reasonable model of reality to account for all potentially valid sub-models that are not falsifiable? After all, if we cannot disprove something, then our model should account for the possibility that it is true (without blindly assuming it’s true either). Otherwise we can never trust our model, just as we can never trust OR.

So this is why I’m such an advocate of Subjective Reality. I realize it’s not an easy model to understand or adopt if you’re currently enmeshed within the perspective of OR. But if you do manage to get there, I think you’ll find it makes much more sense than OR and allows you to make more accurate decisions. You lose none of the strengths of the OR model because OR is fully contained within SR, but you add an outer container that allows you to integrate and accept many other perspectives as well.

Of course if you do make the shift to SR, good luck explaining it to other OR addicts!

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/09/subjective-reality-simplified/

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Just to highlight the near pointless exercise of discussing anything with you, Jan:

Where have I expressed that God exists as fact, meaning He can be observed, and poked about?

Why do you think things only exist if they can "be observed and poked about"? Are you also now asserting that God does not exist? Can God be observed and poked about? If not then surely you think God does not exist, right?
Secondly, your inconsistent approach has resulted in you previously asserting that you don't even consider the question of God's existence, the implication being that God's existence is a given. Your very use of the term "without" implies that you assert God's existence as fact, or are you now going to change your position on that as well, in that one can be without what doesn't exist?
Get your story consistent, Jan. It's impossible to make any headway in a discussion with you when no one can rely on the words you use meaning the same thing from sentence to sentence. A previous comparison of you to Humpty Dumpty springs to mind.

Now when something does Not exist, it means there is no inkling of that phenomenon.

Utter garbage.
Even using the definition you earlier want to apply: observable and able to be poked about , this new notion is clearly unsupportable. By your own definition God does not exist (see above). Yet you also assert that God does exist (implied through your continued use of "without God" etc). You claim to have some knowledge of God, but you claim God is not observable and able to be poked about. So, according to you, God exists and does not exist all at the same time.

So FFS, Jan, just get some consistency in your arguments.

 

[Michael 345]

Do OR and SR contradict each other?

This depends on your perspective.

If you begin from an OR perspective, then you would say they cannot both coexist. If OR is correct, then SR must be false. At best you’re able to adopt the mindset of solipsism within the larger context of OR, but you cannot fit the perspective of SR within an OR framework. To me, this is one of the major limitations of the OR model. OR rejects SR but can never disprove it, so OR inherently rejects a potentially valid perspective. It’s like saying, “I’m right and you’re wrong” just because I’m me and you’re not. This is a major failure of the OR model. If a model does not have a place for all potentially valid perspectives, it’s not a good model. Consequently, we can never fully trust this model because it could very well be completely wrong. If we base our decisions on this model, we could be making one inaccurate decision after another, but we’d never know it. It’s just too narrow for our purposes, like going through life with one arm tied behind your back.

The main exception where OR allows us to integrate a subset of SR is during our nighttime dreams. In this manner you would say your nighttime dreams are contained within the larger scope of OR, so you’re still a physical being sleeping on a bed having that internal mental experience when you dream at night. Anyone who’s experienced a lucid dream knows this perspective quite well. However, notice that when you aren’t fully lucid, you’re tricked into thinking that your subjective dream world is actually another OR world. You blindly accept that you’re the character in the dream, totally unaware that you’re actually the dreamer, and the whole world is contained within your consciousness. But of course you’re wrong, and you’ll never realize that until (1) you wake up, or (2) you become lucid within your dream. So how do you know you aren’t making this same mistaken assumption right now? Have you ever been lucid while awake?

Although OR can accept the subjective nature of nighttime dreams, it completely fails to account for the perspective of SR at the level of waking physical reality. If you subscribe to the model, it basically compels you to conclude that people who believe in SR are either mistaken or delusional — that is the nature of belief systems that reject other potentially valid perspectives. Hence… you can expect that I’ll continue receiving those “you’re a nutter” emails from OR subscribers, even though not a single one of them has attempted to prove SR wrong. Again, that would be impossible because SR isn’t falsifiable.

Now let’s consider OR from the perspective of SR.

An intelligent model of reality should account for all potentially valid perspectives, and SR does this very well. It does not reject OR out of hand. It simply puts OR at a different level. The objective world is the dream world, which is basically a simulation running within the larger consciousness that is you. By shifting to your first-person perspective and interacting with the simulation from the inside — which is admittedly a very seductive perspective to adopt — you can experience the perspective of OR within the larger SR context. If you’ve seen The Matrix movies, when the characters go into the Matrix and interact with it, they’re in the OR world of the simulation. Setting aside their enhanced physical abilities and the outside help they receive, their bodies are still otherwise subject to the laws of the simulation, just as your body is subject to the laws of this OR simulation.

From an SR perspective, OR simply describes the dream world properties, while SR is the perspective that knows it’s just a dream. These two perspectives can coexist without contradicting each other. This is much like playing a video game. You can identify yourself as the player outside the simulation or as the character within it. You might even be the person who programmed it too. All these perspectives are valid without contradicting each other.

Neither OR nor SR are falsifiable, so you can’t prove either of them wrong in an objective sense. However, in a subjective sense, the experience of SR from the inside and the way it accounts for OR seems much more logical to me than OR’s outright rejection of SR. SR allows for the potentially valid perspective of solipsism as well. Consequently, I find the larger context of SR to be more accurate.

Would you agree that it makes sense for a reasonable model of reality to account for all potentially valid sub-models that are not falsifiable? After all, if we cannot disprove something, then our model should account for the possibility that it is true (without blindly assuming it’s true either). Otherwise we can never trust our model, just as we can never trust OR.

So this is why I’m such an advocate of Subjective Reality. I realize it’s not an easy model to understand or adopt if you’re currently enmeshed within the perspective of OR. But if you do manage to get there, I think you’ll find it makes much more sense than OR and allows you to make more accurate decisions. You lose none of the strengths of the OR model because OR is fully contained within SR, but you add an outer container that allows you to integrate and accept many other perspectives as well.

Of course if you do make the shift to SR, good luck explaining it to other OR addicts!

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/09/subjective-reality-simplified/

Jan.

Again just when I thought Cowpat couldn't be piled higher along comes another post to prove me wrong

 

[Jan Ardena]

Where in any of what you subsequently wrote does it suggest that it is not an emotion?

Compassion motivates people to go out of their way to help physical, spiritual, or emotional hurts or pains of another. Compassion is often regarded as having an emotional aspect to it, though when based on cerebral notions such as fairness, justice and interdependence, it may be considered rational in nature and its application understood as an activity based on sound judgment.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why do you think things only exist if they can "be observed and poked about"?

I am referring to James where he made the comparison of what constitutes evidences of existence. He used a rock.
I've already given a brief explanation of the difference between God and a rock, in terms of their existence.

Secondly, your inconsistent approach has resulted in you previously asserting that you don't even consider the question of God's existence, the implication being that God's existence is a given.

Firstly my approach is not inconsistent.
Secondly what does this have to do with anything?

Your very use of the term "without" implies that you assert God's existence as fact, or are you now going to change your position on that as well, in that one can be without what doesn't exist?

It implies that God Is, and I've stated this, so why do you insist on contradicting me. This means there is nothing but God. He brings what He chooses into existence. While I accept this, as opposed the alternative, you don't have to be a theist to come to that conclusion. That is probably why it has you running around in circles trying to find a way out.

The rest of your post can be handled by the above.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Again just when I thought Cowpat couldn't be piled higher along comes another post to prove me wrong

Ah well!

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

This is starting to become a meta-discussion rather than a discussion of the thread topic. Probably that's because you ran out of new things to say about the topic some time ago.

"objective reality" means that reality exists independent of our minds.

Subjective reality refers to the reality inside your mind. It is the meaning you assign to things and events. All objects, dreams ideas and “truths” are different for each person.

Pretty simple really.

You say that it's all pretty simple, but when you try to put it into practice it all falls to pieces for you. You keep claiming that God exists for you but not for me, all the while apparently failing to separate the question of our subjective perceptions from the question of the objective existence of God.

Where have I expressed that God exists as fact, meaning He can be observed, and poked about?

In all your posts. You talk about "acknowledging" God, and about being open to God, and that kind of thing. This implies that there is an external entity separate from your own thoughts and feelings, who can be observed and "poked about". It means that you think that God exists not just in your thoughts and feelings, but as "fact", as something "out there".

Correct me if this is not your view. If you actually believe that God exists only in your thoughts and feelings, and not in reality, please let me know.

Where did I say that I feel God's existence, therefore God exists?

I notice you like to purposely distort what I say in your so called summation. A very nasty and dishonest tactic. So please quote rather than surmise, if you wish to continue the discussion.

You leave me no choice but to surmise, because you give so little away regarding how, exactly, you believe you know about God.

You like to talk about "scripture", but that isn't why you believe in God. Your scriptures don't show that God exists. So, there's something else at work that drives your belief.

In fact, you have admitted in the past that you don't believe in God because of any kind of objective evidence. You assert, in fact, that the entire universe is evidence for God, but that just means that you're working with a prior assumption that God is the cause of all. You're not looking at the universe and inferring God; you're starting with God and inferring that the universe comes from God.

So, why does God exist, according to you? I think that, when it comes down to it, you're no different from most theists. You have the usual human feeling of being a small part of something bigger, and you personify and reify that bigness until it becomes a deity. Moreover, your mind helpfully supplies numinous feelings that bolster your beliefs.

If this is not how it works for you, please let me know.

I've put this here as an example of your nasty tactics. Please show quote.

Quote:

Me: "Where does this "awareness" that God exists come from, for you?"
Jan Ardena: "It's entirely natural."

You claim that you just "naturally" know that God exists, somehow. This is your stated position, not a "nasty tactic" of mine.

As I've said before, there is no justify God to you at all.

What you mean is that there's no way to justify God rationally.

I'm quite happy for you to hold an irrational belief, Jan. But you should be willing to admit that it's irrational. Drop this pretence that you believe in God for a justifiable reason. Reason has nothing to do with your belief, at its foundation. The reason comes after your belief, not before it.

Now when something does Not exist, it means there is no inkling of that phenomenon. The only reason you are engaged in a discussion about God, is because other people experience God.

And yet, I was a theist just like you for many years. But somehow I now have "no inkling" about God. I guess I forgot or something. Or else there's no True Scotsman. Something like that.

You can squirm and distort all you like, but that is the reality.

The only person squirming here is you, Jan. You repeatedly get yourself into these binds in discussions and end up spending pages and pages trying desperately to extricate yourself from the edifices you attempt to construct.

I nearly forgot this distortion.

That's not a distortion. It's practically a word-for-word quote of what you wrote.

You asked me where the awareness of God comes from, I replied that it is totally natural (which it is).

See?

I know what you mean by exists. You mean like a rock, something that your gross mundane senses can observe.

Are you going to start torturing the word "exists" again now?

I've explained what I mean by God's existence. But you can't accept that, you want me to show God to you, and if I can't you get to say, "therefore God doesn't exist.

Let me try to summarise what I think you're saying you mean about God's existence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are saying that God is the root cause of everything there is. It follows, therefore, that the very fact that we're having this discussion was ultimately caused by God. The fact that you and I are here to have this discussion is only possible because God caused us to be. Therefore, you say, God exists.

But this is begging the question of God's existence. You start with the assumption that God exists and infer that, therefore, everything comes from God. But we don't start with God if we're trying to prove God. We start with us and what we can perceive. We can't assume a priori that we're only here because of God. We haven't established there is a God yet - that is the question we're trying to answer. What is necessary, then, is an investigation into why things exist and what causes them. One possible conclusion of such an investigation might be God, but there might be other possibilities.

This is not, by the way, the discussion we're having in this thread, so I'm not going to go any further on this line of thought here. The point is: you can't start to prove that God exists by assuming what you're trying to prove.

One other point: I understand from what you have said that you don't even consider it a valid question to ask "Does God exist?" Obviously, if you start by begging the question and assuming that the existence of anything is proof of God, then it will make no sense to ask the question. It's obvious that there's somebody doing the asking; therefore God exists.

So, I understand exactly why the question doesn't occur to you. You've always put the cart before the horse, so you're blind to the possibility that there's really no cart after all.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Atheist are easy to argue with, especially when you use their label as it was intended, rather than the fuzzy designer, eternally changeable, meanings the personally choose for themselves.
Your sitting ducks.
Probably that's why I've got running around like a headless chicken, trying to patch up some of holes I've poked in your fantasy position.

Heh. You made me smile, Jan.

Whenever you talk about "original meaning" and "as it was intended", I know what you really mean. You mean to redefine the label or the word under discussion to mean what you want it to mean. Then, you pretend that's the only possible meaning. Indeed, you're willing to spend page upon page insisting that your redefinition is the "correct" definition.

I see why redefining words to suit yourself makes your job "easy" for you. You just pretend that words mean what you want them to mean and that anybody who says differently is wrong. Never mind their arguments. They are using the "wrong" definition from the start. Easy. And the fact that you insult people when you attempt to impose your own labels onto them, in spite of everything they tell you, doesn't phase you in the slightest.

Somebody here has a fantasy position, Jan. But I don't think it's me.

Yes. To you.

I repeat: nothing about the objective existence of God follows from your subjective feelings on the matter. That isn't a statement that's true just for me, personally. It's true objectively.

Another distortion James.?
Who said anything about not caring?

You did, when you wrote that you're not "hung up on convincing people of things".

Remember you are atheist.

Thanks for the reminder, Jan. I'd almost forgotten.

So you have no idea how to inform people about God. You have no idea that it is best not to try and convince people, about God.
You have no idea that God Is, and as such is available for those who accept, and turn to Him.
This all lost on you James.

I completely understand how religion is usually "done". It's not done by direct confrontation of beliefs. Do that and people become defensive and shut down, like you are right now. The usual approach, rather, is to take the religious dogma as a given and just spread the word about it. Where possible, make sure that people get it regularly and often. Try to discourage thinking too much about it. What is wanted is for people not to think too hard - rather just absorb. Where possible, try to get them into a receptive state before you tell them about God or other points of your religion; there are lots of techniques and rituals for doing that. Tell them that by shutting down clearing their minds they will be more receptive to God. Repeatedly tell them that the most important thing is for them to be "open" to receiving the message, and that they just need to "accept" it.

I know how "informing people about God" works, Jan, believe me.

I must admit i enjoy watching you desperately trying to bring this discussion into the "Does God Exist" mode, because you can't reconcile being without God, as label correctly suggests.

Recall that you brought the requirement that God exists into your attempted redefinition of the word "atheist". That's why we're discussing whether God exists.

Since you have no personal experience of what atheism is really like, you desperately flail around constructing a straw man of what you imagine it is like. I can't say that I exactly enjoy watching you blundering around in the dark. That's why I'm trying to help you find some light.

Do you feel left out James?
Is it a case "if I am without God, then everybody is without God "

That's a good question, Jan, and I'm glad you asked it.

The answer is: no, I don't feel at all "left out" of the religious circle of believers. On the contrary, I have found that atheism brings a lot of clarity about what really matters. There's a huge sense of liberation from all the mumbo jumbo of religion and mysticism.

Having said that, I completely respect other people's rights to believe what they want about God and religion, provided they aren't harming other people because of their beliefs. I know plenty of believers, including people who are very close to me.

On the question of objective reality, it is a truism that if I am without God then everybody is without God. I realise that you like to smoosh the objective and the subjective together (or else you are actually functionally unable to distinguish them), so that in your mind I can be without God while you are with God. But the objective fact remains: either we're both "with" God, or we're both "without" him. And there's nothing you or I can do about that, so there would be no point in either of us getting angry about it.

In reality, you trying to convince yourself that your weak position, is a strong one.
Your position is that you are currently without God, and no amount of intellectual waffle is going to change that.

This is just more evidence that for you, the question of God's existence is not an intellectual one. You don't believe in God for intellectual or rational reasons. Hence your haste to dismiss rationality as "intellectual waffle".

This is probably a low point for you in our discussions, Jan. You have now sunk to arguing that "intellectualism" and rationality itself is a bad thing. That's a very weak stance to take in an intellectual debate.

It's not a debate, it's a discussion.

You only see it that way because of your misplaced overconfidence in your own position.

But maybe you're right. Maybe you lost the debate a while ago, and now it really is just a discussion - sweeping up after the party has ended.

I'm explaining to you the original meaning of the term "atheist"...

Nah. You're explaining to me how you think of atheists.

It's my prerogative. Correct?

Sure. I understand your reluctance, like I said.

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

I get it. You think it's a moral failing, or a failure of nerve, or simple stupidity, or some combination of those.

And I think I know why you think that. You assume that the atheist holds his beliefs for the same reasons that you hold your beliefs. That is, you think that the atheist has a gut feeling that God doesn't exist, and everything else follows from that. You think the atheists decides "in his heart" that God doesn't exist, then seeks to rationalise that choice. It's the same for you in reverse: you have a gut feeling ("in your heart") that God exists, and afterwards you seek to rationalise that feeling.

But this is not how atheists actually operate, Jan. Unlike you, they don't start with the conclusion and then try to rationalise it. They start with rationality and follow it to whatever conclusion it leads to.

See the difference?

If want to get back to a civil discussion I suggest you quote me properly instead of distorting what I say. That is one nasty habit you have.

A lot of the content of your posts consists of repetitive recitals of your initial claims, with only early attempts to justify them. If you answers questions at all, it is often with one or a few word snippets, or at most a sentence or two. You play your cards close to your chest. From your few words of explanation it becomes necessary to infer what you might mean. For me, that often involves running various scenarios past you as to what you might have meant, to see which, if any, gets some acknowledgment. I also often find myself drawing on snippets from past conversations and the overall impression I get from you in order to build up a mental picture of your worldview. Whenever I speculate, I always make sure to invite you to correct any misapprehension I may have, of course.

Do you think that what you perceive as me distorting your views could, just possibly, be your failure to communicate your views clearly and fully?

The point of dispute is the meaning of the term 'atheist'.

That's what I said above. Of course, you left that part out - even though it was in the very next sentence to the one you quoted. Here it is again:

Me: "And perhaps most signficantly, the point of dispute is your insistence that I can't be an atheist unless your God objectively exists."

Does it mean what it is supposed to mean, or does mean anything that takes your fancy?

You think "atheist" is supposed to mean "God exists". Does "atheist" mean "God exists"? I don't think it does.

That sounded about as sincere as you relationship with God.

Do you think I lied about my relationship to God?

It must be because there's no True Scotsman, I guess.

 

[James R]

In intelligent model of reality should account for all potentially valid perspectives, and SR does this very well. It does not reject OR out of hand. It simply puts OR at a different level. The objective world is the dream world, which is basically a simulation running within the larger consciousness that is you. By shifting to your first-person perspective and interacting with the simulation from the inside — which is admittedly a very seductive perspective to adopt — you can experience the perspective of OR within the larger SR context. If you’ve seen The Matrix movies, when the characters go into the Matrix and interact with it, they’re in the OR world of the simulation. Setting aside their enhanced physical abilities and the outside help they receive, their bodies are still otherwise subject to the laws of the simulation, just as your body is subject to the laws of this OR simulation.

Are you saying you think you might be a brain in a vat, Jan?

Interesting that you have changed your mind on that, all of a sudden.

Does this mean that you think when you imagine God, God becomes real "for you" in your subjective reality (SR), and that's all that really matters, then?

Why didn't you make your views on this clear earlier in the thread? It would have saved a lot of time. We can agree that in your subjective reality, God exists and atheists deny God. Meanwhile, in the atheist subjective reality, God (probably) does not exist. And both the theists and the atheists can be right, because there is no objective reality after all.

Is this your position?

 

[James R]

This means there is nothing but God. He brings what He chooses into existence. While I accept this, as opposed the alternative, you don't have to be a theist to come to that conclusion. That is probably why it has you running around in circles trying to find a way out.

This is getting more and more bizarre.

You don't have to be a theist to believe there's nothing but God?

Huh?

If you believe there's nothing but God, doesn't that make you a theist? Or are we about to hear that there's No True Scotsman again?

 

[Sarkus]

Compassion motivates people to go out of their way to help physical, spiritual, or emotional hurts or pains of another. Compassion is often regarded as having an emotional aspect to it, though when based on cerebral notions such as fairness, justice and interdependence, it may be considered rational in nature and its application understood as an activity based on sound judgment.

I asked you where it suggests that compassion is not an emotion. So, assuming the bolted parts are where you think it suggests this:
"Compassion motivates...." Are you suggesting that emotions do not motivate?
"it may be considered rational in nature and its application understood as an activity based on sound judgment." How does this suggest that it is not an emotion? All it is saying is that it is rational in nature (as emotions can be - not all are irrational), and that the application (I.e. how we use it) is understood as an activity based on sound judgement. As are other emotions, such as puzzlement etc.

So I ask again: where in any of what you posted does it suggest that compassion is not an emotion? So far you have not done that. If you think what you have highlighted answers the question then please explain, please clarify how you think it does suggest it.

 

[Sarkus]

I am referring to James where he made the comparison of what constitutes evidences of existence. He used a rock.

He did? Or did you merely use that (in post #761) as an example of how you understand his notion of existence? If he did initially offer that as an example, please can you point it out as I must have missed that line of discussion.

I've already given a brief explanation of the difference between God and a rock, in terms of their existence.

You have? Again, apologies but I must have missed it. Certainly you've said what the existence of a rock is like (observable and able to be poked about) but only that God's existence is different, but without further clarification or explanation. Is this what you meant?

Firstly my approach is not inconsistent.

The countless identified examples throughout this thread would suggest otherwise.

Secondly what does this have to do with anything?

Your inconsistency? You don't think it has anything to do with the discussion? Well, not in terms of subject matter, only in terms of you getting yourself understood etc.

It implies that God Is, and I've stated this, so why do you insist on contradicting me.

To be clear, it implies that you are claiming that God exists. If you think that this claimed existence is different to the existence of a rock, okay, that's an argument you can try to make. And those who think otherwise can have that discussion with you.

This means there is nothing but God.

But even though there is nothing but God, you can't provide any physical evidence of God?

He brings what He chooses into existence. While I accept this, as opposed the alternative, you don't have to be a theist to come to that conclusion. That is probably why it has you running around in circles trying to find a way out.

Why do you accept it? On what basis?
And if it helps you to think that people are running around in circles, who are we to stop you.

The rest of your post can be handled by the above.

I'm sure you think that, Jan, but it doesn't. Your evasion is noted, though. Criticism of your contradictory position remains unanswered.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In all your posts. You talk about "acknowledging" God, and about being open to God, and that kind of thing. This implies that there is an external entity separate from your own thoughts and feelings, who can be observed and "poked about"

For you it does James.

You like to talk about "scripture", but that isn't why you believe in God. Your scriptures don't show that God exists. So, there's something else at work that drives your belief.

God Is, is what's at work.
Your position is "any concept of God I can process, isn't".

In fact, you have admitted in the past that you don't believe in God because of any kind of objective evidence. You assert, in fact, that the entire universe is evidence for God, but that just means that you're working with a prior assumption that God is the cause of all. You're not looking at the universe and inferring God; you're starting with God and inferring that the universe comes from God

What does this have to do with your position of being without God, other than to highlight it?

All you know is that God does not currently exist. You know this is true, but you don't like the implication of God is. So you try to justify your position by questioning God's existence. You set the criteria for which God must exist, then when God doesn't bite, therefore God doesn't exist (best chuck a probably in their to appear rational).

You're just flip flopping between ideas, but it all means nothing. You are still without God. And the only reason you will deny that is because of it's implication.

So, why does God exist, according to you? I think that, when it comes down to it, you're no different from most theists. You have the usual human feeling of being a small part of something bigger, and you personify and reify that bigness until it becomes a deity. Moreover, your mind helpfully supplies numinous feelings that bolster your beliefs.

You can speculate all you like, all you know is that God doesn't currently exist.

You claim that you just "naturally" know that God exists, somehow. This is your stated position, not a "nasty tactic" of mine.

Naturally aware of God. The more we learn the more we comprehend. This is part of the "knowing process".

You claim that you just "naturally" know that God exists, somehow. This is your stated position, not a "nasty tactic" of mine.

Again you're talking about a "rock" type of existence. That would mean I am claiming to know something not connected to myself, and in another region of space. Maybe that is what confuses you.
I believe I've explained what I mean by God's existence.

What you mean is that there's no way to justify God rationally.

In any way, because for you, God doesn't exist. You want me to convince you that x exists, but for you x is non existent.
Now you just want default everything to your mindset.

I'm quite happy for you to hold an irrational belief, Jan. But you should be willing to admit that it's irrational. Drop this pretence that you believe in God for a justifiable reason. Reason has nothing to do with your belief, at its foundation. The reason comes after your belief, not before it

All you know is that God doesn't currently exist. Even if you could defeat me, that would be your limitation.

The only person squirming here is you, Jan. You repeatedly get yourself into these binds in discussions and end up spending pages and pages trying desperately to extricate yourself from the edifices you attempt to construct.

I think you'll find your the one who is spending pages, I'm getting verbal abuse for trying to keep it short and sweet.

You are saying that God is the root cause of everything there is. It follows, therefore, that the very fact that we're having this discussion was ultimately caused by God. The fact that you and I are here to have this discussion is only possible because God caused us to be. Therefore, you say, God exists.

We're the cause of this conversation.
God is the reason it can occur.

Therefore I say God Is.

Not bad James.

But this is begging the question of God's existence. You start with the assumption that God exists and infer that, therefore, everything comes from God. But we don't start with God if we're trying to prove God. We start with us and what we can perceive.
But we don't start with God if we're trying to prove God. We start with us and what we can perceive.We can't assume a priori that we're only here because of God. We haven't established there is a God yet - that is the question we're trying to answer. What is necessary, then, is an investigation into why things exist and what causes them. One possible conclusion of such an investigation might be God, but there might be other possibilities.

We start from what we observe. If God Is, and we are aware of it, we start from there. Being without God means that you start from nothing. Meaning you just happen to be, on this planet.
Both are classed as presuppositions we use to learn more about our positions. If my presupposition is a priori, then yours must also be.

The point is: you can't start to prove that God exists by assuming what you're trying to prove

I'm not trying to prove God exists. You can't convince somebody of an existence of something that for them is non existent.

One other point: I understand from what you have said that you don't even consider it a valid question to ask "Does God exist?"

It is as valid as asking if you exist. There may be scenarios where such a question is pertinent, but not in a discussion about atheism. In such a discussion there a two POV. God exists, God doesn't exist.

I accept your position. Why can't you accept mine?

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

He did? Or did you merely use that (in post #761) as an example of how you understand his notion of existence? If he did initially offer that as an example, please can you point it out as I must have missed that line of discussion

No. I'm not trapseing trough James long posts.

You have? Again, apologies but I must have missed it. Certainly you've said what the existence of a rock is like (observable and able to be poked about) but only that God's existence is different, but without further clarification or explanation. Is this what you meant

Same as above.

The countless identified examples throughout this thread

There are clearly two sides in this discussion. Your side specialises in obfuscatory tactics. Bring up the quotes in question and I will deal with them.

be clear, it implies that you are claiming that God exists.

Maybe so, but I have my reasons using the term God Is. So please kindly go with what I write, as opposed to what suits your attempts.

But even though there is nothing but God, you can't provide any physical evidence of God?

You're not listening. Are you?

Why do you accept it? On what basis?

What does this question have to do with the discussion?

I'm sure you think that, Jan, but it doesn't. Your evasion is noted, though. Criticism of your contradictory position remains unanswered.

It does Sarkus.
No evasion necessary. You questions are limited to God does not currently exist. You are as you label suggests. You may lack belief in, as you put it... a god, or god's.
But the truth is you are without God.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

God Is, is what's at work.

What does "God Is" mean?
Do you simply mean that God is the cause of all?
If so, please can you provide evidence of that assertion?

I believe I've explained what I mean by God's existence.

Where?

We're the cause of this conversation.
God is the reason it can occur.

Therefore I say God Is.

Ah, so "God Is" really is just another assertion that God is the cause of all.
Okay.

We start from what we observe.

Yet have you not said that God is not observable?

If God Is, and we are aware of it, we start from there.

How are you "aware" of God?
Because you have read about the notion in a book?
Because others have mentioned it to you?
How did you conclude that "God Is" to begin your journey, which starts from a conditional ("If God Is...").
What if God Isn't?

Being without God means that you start from nothing. Meaning you just happen to be, on this planet.

We all start from nothing.

Both are classed as presuppositions we use to learn more about our positions.

No.
One is an a priori assumption.
The other is simply the lack of that a priori assumption.

If my presupposition is a priori, then yours must also be.

Not true.
If you hold a beer in your hand, and I don't, we don't both hold drinks.

You can't convince somebody of an existence of something that for them is non existent.

Yes you can.
You show it to them and provide evidence of it until it becomes a delusion for them to reject it.
At that point you have a demonstrable mental incapacity on your hands.

It is as valid as asking if you exist. There may be scenarios where such a question is pertinent, but not in a discussion about atheism.

Given that one position is the lack of belief that God exists, it is perhaps a rather key question.
It is a question the atheist asks himself before labeling himself as an atheist.
To not consider it pertinent is thus to misunderstand the atheist point of view, to misunderstand the importance that the matter of existence plays.

In such a discussion there a two POV. God exists, God doesn't exist.

You are correct, there are 2 POVs.
But one is belief in the existence of God, and the other is a lack of such belief.
To argue any other issue, or any other notion of atheism, is fundamentally a strawman.

I accept your position. Why can't you accept mine?

Accepting each other's position or not is irrelevant to the debate/discussion.
Or do you expect your position to be beyond scrutiny?
Given that it is a position that stands contrary to atheism, interrogating it would seem valid.
As would interrogating the atheist position - as long you interrogate their position and not the one you've made up for them.
Acceptance of one's position is neither required nor asked for.

 

[spidergoat]

I have a thought experiment for Jan, how would the world be different if there weren't (or it wasn't) god?