In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

No it does not.

No rational atheist is certain that God does not exist.

Are they certain that they are being rational?

The ones that are certain, are so because they have faith (i.e. no proof of their belief.)

You're all without God, and God does not exist for a single one of you. No matter how you spin it.

But I'm glad I shook your tree.

You seem like you need some inspiration.

Those of us who generally like to discuss philosophical issues do recognize that the concept of God to so many people is an issue that cannot simply be dismissed as irrelevant to society as a whole.
Most rational atheists respect the views of theists.

Yet everything you utter about, God, theists, or theism have a dismissive quality.
How ironic.

I respect your belief in God, but this is a debate - about certainty. It sets the bar higher for making a case, and for being certain of a belief.

What's contradictory about what you say, is that you're certain about the concept that there is no certainty.

These are not irrational behaviors. It's called engaging in society.

I think you bury your head in the sand when it come to criticism of you and your (dogmatic) belief.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thanks for the compliment Jan.

I am as you know I am perhaps one of your more devoted fans so I appreciate your recognition.

You ability to support the unsupportable really does impress me and deep down I know you probably hold fears and doubts about god being real and I sincerely hope your personal views which remain personal as they should are not altered by anything I say for it matters not what you believe other than it is your right to believe.

Your entertainment value is priceless.

But after you leave here just remember there is no god and the scriptures are made up fairey tales so you can remain grounded in reality.

I can imagine in your world failure to express publicly belief in god would cause you to be cast out of your community so I can understand the pressure that must place you under to present as a believer.

I hope I was not wrong in assuming that you really don't take these discussions seriously and see them as a sort of game where all dance around without really being too serious.
Because I rate you as a very intelligent person, I suspect, well
I just have this feeling that you really are an atheist and use discussions on god and religion to show you can argue with the best of them.

Boy eh, you make an old man happy.
Alex

We're a match made in heaven, you enjoy my posts, and you being here is the proof that atheist means 'without God.

Once again, thank you.
Your presence has become invaluable, on this thread.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

My only desire has been to know what's true. And at the time I was thinking about these issues, as a child, I was open to all sorts of ideas including magic and ESP. I would have been a devout believer if I was either aware of god or aware of some compelling evidence of god.

What did you do to find out if God was real?

What did they tell you about god?

Nothing. They believed in God, but didn't talk about Him.
Anything I am aware of, is my own efforts, and the mercy of God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So comprehension of God just "comes naturally", without your needing to try or do anything specific?

You don't necessarily know your comprehending God, until you learn more about God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

When we talk of the universe we often mean "everything that exists", or, to word it equivalently "the totality of existing things".

Why would you go and do a thing like that?

So, again: you might have become aware of the concept (of God) through scripture, but how do you know it to be true?

I believe it is true, based on my experiences, information I have obtained over years, science, religion, philosophy, art, reading scriptures, etc.

Not at all.
Atheists merely lack the belief that God exists.

You lack a belief in God that doesn't exist as far as you're aware, because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. Why do you deny it?

It is entirely in keeping to question the position of those, such as you, who are trying to assert the atheist position to be incorrect.

Prove that it is incorrect. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. I have shown that your position is that God does not currently exist. That God doesn't exist for any atheist. Prove me wrong with something other than denial.

And the other part?

I've answered this already.

As far as it applies to what I would find problematic about my own beliefs, that would depend on the other part

Then read my responses properly, instead of just trying to look for a reset button .

I've answered this question already.
Don't think because you word it differently, it's a different question.

And since when does religion equate to the reality of the tenets of that religion?
Where in that article, or any other you may care to put forth, does it say that the adherence to a religion by one - or indeed by everyone - equate to the tenets, the beliefs, of that religion being fact?

I don't think they are necessarily talking about institutes and doctrines. Religion is a discipline which helps one to ultimately link/bind, join with God again. Any institute that specifically aims for that is religion. Any institute that falls short of that is defined in sriptures as irreligious.
Makes sense to me.

Please show me something to suggest that God is more than just a concept.

Only you can do that.

Note, I'm not saying that God is just a concept, only that unless you are saying you directly observe God (other than through question begging circular reasoning) then all you have, all anyone has, is a concept

You see it like that because for you God does not exist, although you're in denial of that position.

Have you ever tried to become aware of God, or have you always used pure intellect, to find your broken tie with God?

Who says I'm not comprehending God.
Comprehending something does not mean it has actual existence.

I say you're not comprehending God, or we wouldn't be having this particular conversation.

What? Do you think you can hide such comprehension?

Just because I can see no God does not mean, to me, that God does not exist.
I, like a number of others here, merely do not have the belief that God does exist.

At what point do you say, there is no God.

I'm not asking you to answer from my perspective.
When I ask you a question, please confine yourself to your perspective, not the strawman view you have concocted of atheists

Nevertheless that is the correct answer.
There is no God for you to comprehend.

I know you want the entire human race to be in the same boat, but it doesn't work like that.

I think that humans may well have a tendency to fill in the gaps of comprehension with something that makes sense for us at that age.
In that sense it could be considered an instinct, although I would probably just refer to it as a tendency.
Fortunately we do tend to grow up and become able to override such tendencies

So you don't think those scientists have a good point, despite the years of research, and the evidence to back it up.

You think they should pack up and go home, because you have the answer?

Unfortunately etymology generally works on a chronological basis.
Cicero predates Lactanius - by some 350-400 years.
Lactanius certainly thought his alternative was more in keeping with his notion of what religion is, especially with regard Christianity.
But religion predates Christianity, his views on Christianity, and thus Cicero is (or at least should be) the preferred source

This is where your atheism lets you down (also anytime you deny God) . You simply prefer it not to mean 'to bind again with God.

When you realise that you can bind with God, if you are prepared to, you know why it would mean that.

Non sequitur.
I am saying that you are moving the definition of God into the purely subjective.
I am saying nothing about God but merely commenting on where you put your concept of God.

God is basically Immaterial, so in the beginning it can be seen as purely subjective, but as you learn more, you understand that the objective world we sense, is so precisely because of God. So like I can know that this quote of yours just didn't out of thin air, it is the arrangement of symbols by an intelligence. With a little more detective work I can learn some things about the author, without ever having to correspond with you, or see you.

The difference with the concept of God, however, is that there are unanswerable questions, and the answer of "God" is untestable, unfalsifiable.

So God doesn't exist, but you a bit scared of coming out, so you change it by adding the word 'probably'.

Or you can't be arsed because He won't say how high when you say jump?

Or maybe you're waiting for that all important piece of evidence that satisfied will never emerge, because it has to be in line with your concept?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

and you being here is the proof that atheist means 'without God.

Maybe god sent me to test your faith Jan.

And although you cant accept the current accepted definition of atheist thats ok.

Just remember that I believe the scriptures are made up and that god is made up... have I said that earlier?

As I mentioned to Michael earlier I tend to think religion is a good thing for the masses as it does keep them in line somewhat and lets them stop asking why inoccent folk die horrible deaths, because they can simply conclude god has a plan and that they being mere mortals need no ask anymore why.. Its good really because they need not think and just say its gods plan.

It doesn't even matter that god does not exist as those who find reality unpleasant can simply tell themselves its ok its all in gods plan.

Have a good day Jan and keep up your wonderful posts.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Have a good day Jan and keep up your wonderful posts.

Thanks Alex, your arrogance is duly noted.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Thanks Alex, your arrogance is duly noted.

Jan.

I could not think what I said was arrogance Jan but after reading my last post I could see why you would say that so I edited it to remove my reference to "dull and uninformed" because it probably came over the wrong way. I just meant to include those good simple folk who accept god with no question.
Alex

 

[Baldeee]

Why would you go and do a thing like that?

Because that is what "universe" is oft understood to mean: "everything that exists".
Therefore if we need a word to describe "everything that exists" we already have one: "universe".

I believe it is true, based on my experiences, information I have obtained over years, science, religion, philosophy, art, reading scriptures, etc.

So you don't know it to be true?
You merely believe it is true?

You lack a belief in God that doesn't exist as far as you're aware, because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. Why do you deny it?

I deny it because it is not a description that fits, no matter how many times you wish to make me wear it.

Prove that it is incorrect. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. I have shown that your position is that God does not currently exist. That God doesn't exist for any atheist. Prove me wrong with something other than denial.

You have shown nothing of the sort, Jan.
You have asserted much, but shown nothing.
Furthermore, you are the one making the claim here.
You are the one asserting, not only that "God doesn't exist for any atheist" but also that God does actually exist.
I need prove nothing.
I merely do not hold your belief that God exists.

I've answered this already.

You mean your experiences, information you have obtained over years, science, religion etc?
Then I ask again: how do you know it to be true, rather than just merely believe it to be true?

Then read my responses properly, instead of just trying to look for a reset button .

Eh?
Reset button?

I've answered this question already.
Don't think because you word it differently, it's a different question.

What question?

I don't think they are necessarily talking about institutes and doctrines. Religion is a discipline which helps one to ultimately link/bind, join with God again. Any institute that specifically aims for that is religion. Any institute that falls short of that is defined in sriptures as irreligious.
Makes sense to me.

They are talking about institutes, doctrine etc.
They are using the standard definition of the word religion, not the one you favour.
It is a British newspaper article, so the meanings would be for the standard British person: I.e. Meaning a system of faith and worship etc.
Otherwise you are simply adhering to your "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Only you can do that.

So you can't.
Why not?

You see it like that because for you God does not exist, although you're in denial of that position.

If you have nothing more to offer than to put yourself above scrutiny, and to dismiss what others say with "well for you God does not exist" then we are probably done here.

Have you ever tried to become aware of God, or have you always used pure intellect, to find your broken tie with God?

Have you ever stopped beating your wife?

I say you're not comprehending God, or we wouldn't be having this particular conversation.

Because to you comprehension equates to belief in God?
Which is nothing other than requiring belief in God to be able to believe in God.
Circularity is circular.

What? Do you think you can hide such comprehension?

Why not?
You're doing a pretty darn good job of it yourself.
And who is to say that whatever you think you comprehend is actually God?
You?
Scripture?
Anything not actually tied into the circle of belief?

At what point do you say, there is no God.

If I ever become certain.

Nevertheless that is the correct answer.
There is no God for you to comprehend.

So now you're saying that God does not objectively exist.
If God does exist objectively then there is a God for me to comprehend.
If God does not exist objectively then there is no God for me to comprehend.
Your only recourse is to concur that God is subjective.

I know you want the entire human race to be in the same boat, but it doesn't work like that.

Sure, if something is subjective then you'd be correct.
But if something exists objectively then the entire human race, by definition, is in the same boat with regard it.
You can't have it both ways, Jan.

So you don't think those scientists have a good point, despite the years of research, and the evidence to back it up.

You think they should pack up and go home, because you have the answer?

No, they have a good point, just not the point you are trying to make.
Preponderance to hold belief in something does not equate to that belief having objective reality.

This is where your atheism lets you down (also anytime you deny God) . You simply prefer it not to mean 'to bind again with God.

When you realise that you can bind with God, if you are prepared to, you know why it would mean that.

The argument on this point is purely etymological.
There is no bias in this matter, irrespective of what you may think.

God is basically Immaterial, so in the beginning it can be seen as purely subjective, but as you learn more, you understand that the objective world we sense, is so precisely because of God. So like I can know that this quote of yours just didn't out of thin air, it is the arrangement of symbols by an intelligence. With a little more detective work I can learn some things about the author, without ever having to correspond with you, or see you.

So you really don't know what the difference is between subjective and objective, and that your earlier claim to do so was you simply trotting out some definitions, without actually understanding them.
Got it.
The rest of this is merely the argument of intelligent design.
I thought you would offer more.

So God doesn't exist, but you a bit scared of coming out, so you change it by adding the word 'probably'.

Or you can't be arsed because He won't say how high when you say jump?

Or maybe you're waiting for that all important piece of evidence that satisfied will never emerge, because it has to be in line with your concept?

Build that strawman, Jan.
Build it as high and as imposing as you like.
But one day, hopefully, you may actually discuss with an atheist by listening to what they say about themselves.
And heck, you may one day even understand them.
Until then...

 

[Michael 345]

I could not think what I said was arrogance Jan but after reading my last post I could see why you would say that so I edited it to remove my reference to "dull and uninformed" because it probably came over the wrong way. I just meant to include those good simple folk who accept god with no question.
Alex

Some one in this thread is giving questions in response to asked questions

If a sort of answer is given it is to brief to be of any use or

it is long and rambling looking like a bent corkscrew

and even then does not address the question asked

 

[Jan Ardena]

No. Nor is it possible for children to believe in gods without prior knowledge.

Not according to that scientific study. They seem to think they believe in God naturally, without any prior knowledge.
Are you going to argue with the evidence?

jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Anyway, what about Allah in the Islamic faith? Would he be considered God as well?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Some one in this thread is giving questions in response to asked questions

If a sort of answer is given it is to brief to be of any use or

it is long and rambling looking like a bent corkscrew

and even then does not address the question asked

Yes but at least Jan is not involved.
Alex

 

[spidergoat]

Not according to that scientific study. They seem to think they believe in God naturally, without any prior knowledge.
Are you going to argue with the evidence?

jan.

I would argue that the study shows that children are gullible, for sound evolutionary reasons. Not that they are inclined to god belief specifically. For them, it's all magic because they understand very little about how things work.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Is a heathan an atheist?
heathen
noun · derogatory

1. a person who does not belong to a widely held religion (especially one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim) as regarded by those who do.
   
   Alex

 

[spidergoat]

What did you do to find out if God was real?

I had a bit of a hard time as a kid, (for a middle class white male), I had (have) undiagnosed autism and was bullied and miserable. My parents fought all the time with each other and physically punished me for not doing well in school (they never did discover the problem). Every night I practiced a meditation technique I read about for astral projection, but that didn't seem to work, so I appealed to a god I couldn't perceive for some change. I was 10-14 years old at the time. Maybe I'm getting the order mixed up and prayed to god first. Anyway nothing happened. Eventually I concluded that god and ESP and astral projection and telepathy may still be real, but they didn't work for me. I did, however, like the meditation part, and kept doing that until I was 19. I discovered Zen Buddhism around 16 from my job at the library (I read most of the books in the religion section instead of doing my job), and found that to be profoundly interesting.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because that is what "universe" is oft understood to mean: "everything that exists".
Therefore if we need a word to describe "everything that exists" we already have one: "universe".

Understood by whom?

So you don't know it to be true?
You merely believe it is true?

Isn't that the meaning of theist, a person who believes in God/gods?

I deny it because it is not a description that fits, no matter how many times you wish to make me wear it.

Why doesn't it?

You have shown nothing of the sort, Jan.
You have asserted much, but shown nothing.
Furthermore, you are the one making the claim here.
You are the one asserting, not only that "God doesn't exist for any atheist" but also that God does actually exist.
I need prove nothing.
I merely do not hold your belief that God exists.

I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any atheist. Show that I am mistaken.

They are talking about institutes, doctrine etc.
They are using the standard definition of the word religion, not the one you favour.
It is a British newspaper article, so the meanings would be for the standard British person: I.e. Meaning a system of faith and worship etc.
Otherwise you are simply adhering to your "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Children generally don't worship.
Children generally don't do doctrine.
Use your head Baldeee.

I think Roger Trigg is saying that due to the natural link with God, religion is not as they first suspected, a man made institution. That religion is a part of the human psyche, just as belief in God is.
It is a natural follow on.
Which makes more sense than the kind of rhetoric Richard Dawkins, and the like, spew.

You mean your experiences, information you have obtained over years, science, religion etc?
Then I ask again: how do you know it to be true, rather than just merely believe it to be true?

I'm a theist. I've already given you the definition.

So you can't.
Why not?

Because I'm not you.

If you have nothing more to offer than to put yourself above scrutiny, and to dismiss what others say with "well for you God does not exist" then we are probably done here.

What you fail to understand, is that it is true.
If it is not true, show why?

Have you ever stopped beating your wife?

I'm not married. Can we get back to your question now?
Remember there is good argument to suggest that as children, we are naturally predisposed toward a belief in a supreme being. So there's a good argument that you were linked to God (before you dismiss this, remember your claim that you don't believe that God neither exists, or not). Do you accept that is possible, given the evidence.

Because to you comprehension equates to belief in God?
Which is nothing other than requiring belief in God to be able to believe in God.
Circularity is circular.

Why are you fighting me at every turn, especially with silly responses that can only mean anything to you, because God doesn't currently exist.

This is why I don't accept that you're being rational. You claim you don't know whether God exists, or not. You claim you are atheist due to either lack of evidence, or insubstantial evidence. Why haven't you changed your mind, even a little bit, in light of the study I linked to you.
It is as if those scientist are a bunch of fanitacal religionists, the way their work doesn't seem to shift you.

This is why I doubt your claim of atheism, as opposed to the original meaning. The latter fits you, and all atheists like a glove. If you view atheists from the original meaning, everything you reveal about yourselves falls into place.

No, they have a good point, just not the point you are trying to make.
Preponderance to hold belief in something does not equate to that belief having objective reality.

That we have that natural instinct is objective reality. What may be considered purely subjective reality are the personal descriptions.
But you seem to explain it away as though it means nothing.
This could be a chance for you to comprehend God (if you are truly undecided).

Given the experiment, could anything that I may have said regarding the nature of God (God Is), have more meaning to you. Given that we are naturally inclined to believe in God, prior to obtain any knowledge or information?

And who is to say that whatever you think you comprehend is actually God?

The links I posted?

If I ever become certain.

IOW, never. Because you deny anything positive about God.

So you really don't know what the difference is between subjective and objective, and that your earlier claim to do so was you simply trotting out some definitions, without actually understanding them.
Got it.
The rest of this is merely the argument of intelligent design.
I thought you would offer more.

I'm sorry, but I'm telling you like I see it.
I think you are simply reading the words, and thinking how to come up with a response, that you think not only defends, but validates your position. But you know I can see behind all of this show. God does not exist for you, and you are afraid to admit it.

So now you're saying that God does not objectively exist.

If God does exist objectively then there is a God for me to comprehend.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that for you (Baldeee) there is no God to comprehend, because you block God out at every turn.

If God does exist objectively then there is a God for me to comprehend.

Correct. Unless you can't comprehend God.
Compassion objectively exists for those who can comprehend it.
Some may see it as subjective, some will see it as both.

If God does not exist objectively then there is no God for me to comprehend.

There is no reason to even entertain this notion, unless God does not exist. There is no reason at all why you should think God does not exist, because you have no way of knowing.

Your only recourse is to concur that God is subjective.

No. God Is. That is the most intelligent recourse (especially in light of evidence)

Sure, if something is subjective then you'd be correct.
But if something exists objectively then the entire human race, by definition, is in the same boat with regard it.
You can't have it both ways, Jan.

But there is a ''both ways''. One is truth, and the other is illusion. You're on the side of illusion mate. Because you're fighting a battle that you can't win.

You can never know if God doesn't exist.
You claim that being undecided is a practical position.
You deny everything that is positive toward God.
You think you can access God through intellect (no one claims to access God through intellect. What makes you think you can?)
There is evidence that human have a natural instinct to believe in God, which you try to explain away.

No, they have a good point, just not the point you are trying to make.
Preponderance to hold belief in something does not equate to that belief having objective reality.

I think it's a little more than that Baldeee.

But one day, hopefully, you may actually discuss with an atheist by listening to what they say about themselves.

I've asked you on quite a few occassions to explain why I am actually wrong, as opposed to you simply not liking it. So far you've refused, and evaded. Let's see what happens this time.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are they certain that they are being rational?

One of the few things one can be certain of is that humans are imperfect, in perception and in cognition.

Descartes struggled with what it means to be an entity. And whether one can trust any of the world.

You're all without God, and God does not exist for a single one of you.

As are you; you just don't know it.

Problem solved. We can all go home now.

What's contradictory about what you say, is that you're certain about the concept that there is no certainty.

I have never claimed there is no certainty.

Again, Descartes grappled with the question of "when you doubt the certainty of everything that you sense and think, what is left?"

His conclusion was that, despite knowing that we must doubt our senses and thoughts, we can be certain that we exist.

Thus, yes.
One of the few things one can be certain of is that almost nothing is certain.


Note:
It does not have to stop us from living our lives and build a civilization. It is only when we question the very nature of existence that the word certainty raises it head.

I think you bury your head in the sand when it come to criticism of you and your (dogmatic) belief.

And yet, here I am, on a forum, discussing it, at great length, with a theist.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any atheist. Show that I am mistaken.

That means if everyone were an atheist, god wouldn't exist. Seems to contradict the notion of god being a higher power.

It does however, fit with the plot of "American Gods" by Niel Gaiman.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I had a bit of a hard time as a kid, (for a middle class white male), I had (have) undiagnosed autism and was bullied and miserable. My parents fought all the time with each other and physically punished me for not doing well in school (they never did discover the problem). Every night I practiced a meditation technique I read about for astral projection, but that didn't seem to work, so I appealed to a god I couldn't perceive for some change. I was 10-14 years old at the time. Maybe I'm getting the order mixed up and prayed to god first. Anyway nothing happened. Eventually I concluded that god and ESP and astral projection and telepathy may still be real, but they didn't work for me. I did, however, like the meditation part, and kept doing that until I was 19. I discovered Zen Buddhism around 16 from my job at the library (I read most of the books in the religion section instead of doing my job), and found that to be profoundly interesting.

Thanks for sharing that SP. Sorry about the hard part in your life.

In my twenties I too sort out Astral Projection. Although I had projected unwillingly, before. I wanted to be able to do it at will. It never did happen.

The search for God hit me after reading a remarkable book called 'The Prophet'.

I read it quite few times, each time find a new depth and meaning.

I became hooked on the level of depth it contained. I had to find more. My appetite became insatiable. I simply yearned for more depth.

To cut a long story short, after reading a lot more depth, I was fortunate enough to develop a small, but significant understanding of the Gita. And it is beautiful.

Jan.