Thank you as well for sharing.
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.
Most people who use the term.Understood by whom?
So you don't know that God exists?Isn't that the meaning of theist, a person who believes in God/gods?
Because I can not say that I am without God.Why doesn't it?
I can neither show you are mistaken nor that you are correct.I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any atheist. Show that I am mistaken.
Yes, children do worship.Children generally don't worship.
Children generally don't do doctrine.
Use your head Baldeee.
You are still deliberately misinterpreting those articles.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.
Your theism speaks to your belief, not to whether or not you know something.I'm a theist. I've already given you the definition.
So God is subjective, then.Because I'm not you.
Please don't shift the burden, Jan.What you fail to understand, is that it is true.
If it is not true, show why?
Show me that there is a broken tie to God.I'm not married. Can we get back to your question now?
No, there is no good argument: a tendency toward a belief in something is no evidence of the veracity of the existence of that something.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).
Of course it's possible.Do you accept that is possible, given the evidence.
You wish me to agree to something that I don't know is true or not.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.
Your idea of rational, I'm probably not.This is why I don't accept that you're rational.
Because, if you actually read the news report on those studies, they are simply referring to a tendency toward belief in something.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.
Not at all.It is as if those scientist are a bunch of fanitacal religionists, the way their work doesn't seem to shift you.
As already argued, which you have failed to address, it is a description that also fits some non-atheists.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.
Some, perhaps most, seem to tend toward belief in some superior agency, yes.That we have that natural instinct is objective reality.
Again, you are equating a tendency to belief in something as somehow being evidence of that thing existing.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).
In what way does the article prove that God exists, or provide any evidence for God existing?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?
How do they do that, exactly?The links I posted?
Show the that it's actually about God, then.IOW, never. Because you deny anything positive about God.
Okay, but if ID is really all you fall back on then I am genuinely disappointed.I'm sorry, but I'm telling you like I see it.
I do read the words, and I come up with a genuine response.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.
So you keep asserting.But you know I can see behind all of this show. God does not exist for you, and you are afraid to admit it.
If God does exist objectively then there is a God for me to comprehend.
The emotional comprehension is the epitome of subjective.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.
Are you suggesting your inability/unwillingness to entertain the notion is somehow evidence that God does exist?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.
Please posit the evidence, and note that evidence of a preponderance toward belief is not evidence that "God Is", for reasons outlined above, and by others here.No. God Is. That is the most intelligent recourse (especially in light of evidence)
So you undoubtedly believe.But there is a ''both ways''. One is truth, and the other is illusion. You're on the side of illusion mate.
I'm not looking to win.Because you're fighting a battle that you can't win.
So I believe at the moment.You can never know if God doesn't exist.
It is mostly intellectual, because the practical world is more binary in such matters (I.e. There is limited scope to act "undecided").You claim that being undecided is a practical position.
I do not have the believe that there is any God to deny.You deny everything that is positive toward God.
Where have I claimed that?You think you can access God through intellect (no one claims to access God through intellect. What makes you think you can?)
Preponderance to believe in a "superhuman" I think is more apt.There is evidence that human have a natural instinct to believe in God, which you try to explain away.
Clearly you do.I think it's a little more than that Baldeee.
I have explained, Jan.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.
Believing that everything has a purpose is not the same as having a predisposition to believe in gods.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.
Indeed. Nor is believing that everything has a purpose evidence that everything does have a purpose.Believing that everything has a purpose is not the same as having a predisposition to believe in gods.
I've walked Jan through this point several times already in this thread. Jan apparently has trouble distinguishing between objective fact and subjective perception. He kind of smooshes the two concepts together and flip-flops between them.
So when you say god doesn't exist for atheists, you really mean that he doesn't appear to exist for them. Which is all we are saying, he doesn't appear to exist. Certainly not through evidence, but also not from introspection or sincere seeking. Even Saint Theresa wrote in her biography that although she had faith, she didn't feel god in any kind of direct way.It means it would appear as God doesn't exist. We know how it would look because there are people for whom the world is a place where God not exist.
The premise of this sci-fi book is that all the gods that were ever believed in exist in various states of power, the least believed-in are the least powerful, and eventually wither away into irrelevance when they lose all their believers. The newest gods are ones of technology. They are also at war with the old gods.Can you give a brief synopsis of the book.
Jan believes that all religions are true in some sense.Anyway, what about Allah in the Islamic faith? Would he be considered God as well?
Jan believes that all religions are true in some sense.
Can I say all religions are fantasy in every sense?
Oh I just did
You are still subscribing to a subjective world.I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any atheist. Show that I am mistaken.
So when you say god doesn't exist for atheists, you really mean that he doesn't appear to exist for them.
Even Saint Theresa wrote in her biography that although she had faith, she didn'
[130] Teresa expressed grave doubts about God's existence
So when you say god doesn't exist for atheists, you really mean that he doesn't appear to exist for them. Which is all we are saying, he doesn't appear to exist. Certainly not through evidence, but also not from introspection or sincere seeking. Even Saint Theresa wrote in her biography that although she had faith, she didn't feel god in any kind of direct way.
Privately, Teresa experienced doubts and struggle in her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years (until the end of her life); according to her postulator, Brian Kolodiejchuk, "She felt no presence of God whatsoever ... in her heart or in the eucharist".[130] Teresa expressed grave doubts about God's existence and pain over her lack of faith:
Where is my faith? Even deep down ... there is nothing but emptiness and darkness ... If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul.[131] (wikipedia)
The premise of this sci-fi book is that all the gods that were ever believed in exist in various states of power, the least believed-in are the least powerful, and eventually wither away into irrelevance when they lose all their believers. The newest gods are ones of technology. They are also at war with the old gods.
You are still subscribing to a subjective world
If
God were to exist objectively (not just in the hearts of theists),
then
an atheist who believed God didn't exist would be wrong.
Me, I wish to discuss God's objective existence (or not).
However, I am OK with you arguing subjective existence, because it means your subjective experience of God is consistent with a world where God is only experienced in the hearts of believers, not out where the rest of us live.
Objective or subjective? Your call.
Jan believes that all religions are true in some sense.
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.
For them, it's all magic because they understand very little about how things work
I agree with your assertion (though it's overstated. I insert the word probably)Hey Dave, I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any atheist. Show that I am mistaken.
Jan.
Here's a counter assertion:
I'm asserting that God doesn't exist for any theist. Show that I am mistaken.
Note though, your use of weasel words. You are using a specious definition of 'exist'.
Witness the use of the word "for" (i.e. for this person, but not that person), which points to a subjective view.
Existence is objective
By the same logic, monetary wealth doesn't exist for starving children in Africa.
I agree with your assertion (though it's overstated. I insert the word probably)
Deepity Jan.We are. God Is.
You got me. You're absolutely correct from your limited perspective.
Good.I know you do.I agree with your assertion that God doesn't exist for any atheist.