God cannot be dependent on our view of him. Either it's a thing or it isn't. The world still exists for non-believers, doesn't god make and operate the world?
In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
You mean you are trying to establish it, because as far as you're aware God does not exist.
As far as you're aware, God does not.
I'm suggesting that you can't use objective reality as measurement for whether God actually exists or not.
And until such time as you obtain this idea, God is non existent, as far as you're aware. Am I correct?
You don't need to. It is your position. That is why you are atheist. You are without God.
Either God exists as you read this, or God doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
Same as above.
You were the one who brought others into it.
I agree that God Is.
But I've told you this already.
That isn't God.
It's not an insult if it is true.
You regard it as an insult because for you there is no God.
How do you know that?
You are.
God doesn't exist for you, and you can't accept it, so you bring in objectivity to help you validate your imagined position.
Now it turns out even objective reality is subjective.
You'd like that to be the case, because you it puts your position in a rational light.
The reality is, God doesn't exist for you, and God Is. Squirm all you like, but there's no getting around it.
There is no argument until you admit to yourself that God does Not exist as far as you're aware. No probably, objective or subjective evasive tactics. God does not exist as far as you're aware. Why are you afraid to admit it?
And you can't.
Over time, one comes to know what is God. Either that, or one forgets what is God.
I understand your fake sense of relief, and as such I will leave you with it. For a while.
You're asking me about God on your terms.
For you God does not exist.
Your terms only accept God does not exist
Nothing I say is going to make God exist for you.
You should all respect Alex, he is the greatest atheist among you.
He speak the truth about his (also yours) position. He doesn't try to smooth it over with intellectual waffle. He should be your leader.
Jan.
Maybe it is the case that you are a fool for accepting there is no God. Why is that an insult?
I understand it being an insult if there were no God, but how will you ever know?
Jan.
Enough of your utter garbage, Jan.
All you can now seem to do is bleat "you are without God" as a catch all for anything you can't understand or simply want to avoid addressing.
You fail to listen to what I have said. That you disagree with it I have no issue as long as it is supported or reasoned. That way discussions move forward. But all you have is repetition of your inane "that's because you are without God".
You clearly don't sufficiently comprehend the difference between objective and subjective enough to be able to meaningfully discuss the matter honestly. You can't even bring yourself to confirm whether you consider God to have an objective existence or a wholly subjective one. All you've replied with is "God Is" but that doesn't actually answer the question as it could apply to either.
And rather than actually address any of the criticism of your position there is nothing but bluster, obfuscation and evasion, all wrapped up in a neat package of blatant dishonesty.
You're no longer offering anything here, Jan. Your position has been identified, as we all suspected, as just an a priori belief supported by circular reasoning. You've convinced me that you can no more know about God than I can, but you convince yourself not only that you can but that you do, all from the blinkered view you have while running around the wheel in your cage.
And for that I honestly pity you.
Hopefully there are some actual honest theists who are willing to discuss the matter more openly, but for now I am sick from the smell of the manure you're serving up here, and have served up for far too long.
If you're going to do one thing, Jan, I just hope that it is that you are at least honest with yourself. At least once, even. But I don't think you'd even recognise it if you were.
All you can now seem to do is bleat "you are without God" as a catch all for anything you can't understand or simply want to avoid addressing.
You fail to listen to what I have said. That you disagree with it I have no issue as long as it is supported or reasoned. That way discussions move forward. But all you have is repetition of your inane "that's because you are without God".
You clearly don't sufficiently comprehend the difference between objective and subjective enough to be able to meaningfully discuss the matter honestly. You can't even bring yourself to confirm whether you consider God to have an objective existence or a wholly subjective one. All you've replied with is "God Is" but that doesn't actually answer the question as it could apply to either.
And rather than actually address any of the criticism of your position there is nothing but bluster, obfuscation and evasion, all wrapped up in a neat package of blatant dishonesty.
You're no longer offering anything here, Jan. Your position has been identified, as we all suspected, as just an a priori belief supported by circular reasoning. You've convinced me that you can no more know about God than I can, but you convince yourself not only that you can but that you do, all from the blinkered view you have while running around the wheel in your cage.
And for that I honestly pity you.
Hopefully there are some actual honest theists who are willing to discuss the matter more openly, but for now I am sick from the smell of the manure you're serving up here, and have served up for far too long.
If you're going to do one thing, Jan, I just hope that it is that you are at least honest with yourself. At least once, even. But I don't think you'd even recognise it if you were.
I asked you what's the difference between belief in God and belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
It's not garbage Sarkus, and there is nothing you have said that I don't understand, or that I need to avoid.
It is a fact. You are without God, and that is at the forefront of reasons why God does not exist for you.
No I haven't.
You do have an issue with it, despite support, or reason.
Of course I understand it.
Again, anything that jeopardises your held position, is met with these typical outbursts.
Objective V subjective realities were brought in by the atheist. I maintain that God Is, and you can't comprehend it.
That is not the same as saying God exists, especially if existence itself is an aspect of God.
It does answer the question. Explanation of God needn't be overly complicated.
Why don't you just try and work with it?
Who knows it might stop you being an atheist.
If that were true you would be able to point out these accusations. As it stands your simply going through the usual accusatory prattle.
I disagree. I have offered something here.
You are without God, which is why God does not exist as far as you're aware. You hide behind personalised descriptions of yourself, to feel justification, when in discussion with theists.
Your held position is all over the place, when put under the smallest amount of scrutiny.
Jan.
Firstly, God isn't a thing.
Secondly, God isn't dependant.
Thirdly God makes and operates the world for every type of conscious awareness. You have a choice to act how you like, within your capacity. If you want to live as though God does not exist, it is within your capacity.
Jan.
I'm saying that there is no difference between belief in gods and belief in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. If you disagree, don't be evasive. Answer the question.
Obviously for me, there is a difference, and obviously for you, there isn't. Isn't that what you'll expect if what I've been saying all along was true?
Jan.
I'm asking you what you think the difference is.
I'm sorry, Jan, but I disagree with you.
Everything you come up with tends to highlight that you don't comprehend what people say, especially on more technical matters (objective v subjective for example).
And all you do is avoid issues, mostly now with "you're without God".
My case in point.
You're not actually addressing anything, just reasserting.
Your posts are littered with this, as if repeating it makes it true.
Again I disagree with you.
First I don't think many here have an issue with people disagreeing, but usually they prefer that the disagreement is supported and reasoned.
Your disagreement isn't.
Or maybe it is to your satisfaction, but clearly it isn't to theirs.
Yet you avoid clarifying for them.
Why is that?
You're not explaining it, Jan.
What do you mean by "God Is"?
Please be clear and concise.
Do you consider God to have an objective existence, or purely a subjective one?
So "God Is" is not the same as saying that God exists in some manner?
Or are you not simply playing silly buggers with definitions again, in further obfuscation and avoidance?
But it need make sense.
You are not making sense, and you seem to deliberately make it that way.
Little of value, it seems, other than seeming to confirm the basis of your belief.
There you go again.
Yet it is you who is demonstrably inconsistent.
And other than arguing against your beloved strawman, I'm not sure what relevance much of your posts have to most atheists here.
It seems, from you, that to be "without God" is simply to have done away with the initial belief in a "superhuman" and to have made sufficient sense of the world without it.
You seem to have stuck with that initial belief and, as Sarkus suggests, simply reinforced it with circular arguments.
So I'll take being "without God" if that is what it basically entails.
Unfortunately you insist on it having the implication that God actually exists.
That is where disagreement lies... one can not accept what one does not agree with.
Furthermore, from all your explanations it seems that "God" really is nothing but a subjective worldview, with no demonstrable, meaningful objective existence.
Any meaningfulness is purely subjective.
Some need the worldview of "God".
Some merely hold it because they haven't really consider it more deeply.
Others don't need it, and give it up.
Yes, no doubt you won't actually respond with anything meaningful and instead just say "that's because you're without God".
And in doing so prove Sarkus' points for him.
Pressed by mistake.
I understand where you're coming from, but I understand enough about objective and subject realities, to argue this particular subject. If you think my understanding is at fault then point it out and let's discuss it.
Saying you are 'without God' is not an avoidance. It is the foundation of your worldview. What you don't like about it, is the implication that God Is, and therefore your atheism is a result of your own mind.
Just saying that I am not reasoned, does not make it so.
Why don't you admit that as you read this post God does not exist, as far as you're aware? I know it is possible for you to claim that you do not know either way. But that has nothing to do with whether God exists as you read this, or not.
I have explained it on numerous occasions.
God simply just is. He doesn't come into, or go out of being. If you want to describe that as existence, be my guest. But it is not the same type of existence you would associate with things we regard as existing, like rocks, and elephants.
Now I don't need to prove that, as it makes no difference whether I do (if I could), or not.
The other alternative, is your mindset, God doesn't exist, as far as I'm aware.
Note the "as far as I'm aware, because we cannot know if God does Not exist, but we can, and do know God Is.
Then tell me what doesn't make sense, don't just assert it.
That conclusion can be made without the need for belief, based on the original meaning of the term atheist. Which is why you are happy to render it null and void.
I am very consistent, you just don't like it.
I'm not arguing a Strawman, only that the original meaning of the term atheist, is very apparent today. I think it deals with character of the atheist.
At first you come across as light-hearted, then you descend into ad-hominem attacks, telling people they don't understand stuff, or accusing people of talking s-it, when they get a little too close to the reality of your position.
To be 'without God' is to exactly that.
God simply doesn't exist, as far as you're aware.
Even your reasoning, and questioning, regarding God, is evidence that God does not exist as far as you're aware.
It is a fact, but you deny it Why?
If you cannot comprehend God, then God doesn't appear to exist. That is the crux.
But one can accept what is correct.
You can deny it, but it is still correct if you look at it honestly.
It matters to you, so I'm going to leave it there. Your denial is becoming quite pathetic.
Jan.
At least you are being credited with having a heart
Be greatful for the smallest gifts god bestowes upon you
The fool part you deserve
Not for not believing but trying (in my opinion) to long to hold a rational ping pong post with
The idiot who doth say in their brain
"god does exist because I think it
I can not show you god exist for you because for you
you do NOT think it"
You mean you haven't been convinced by his erudite, consistent, meaningful, coherent, and wholly non-fallacious reasoning?
Or is it 'cos you're simply "without God"?
You mean you haven't been convinced by his erudite, consistent, meaningful, coherent, and wholly non-fallacious reasoning?
Or is it 'cos you're simply "without God"?
I was watching (well it was on in the background) Forest Gump the other day
He was having a talk with the Lieutenant he had rescued after the Lieutenant had lost his legs
The Lieutenant was berating the other vets in the hospital who had found god
He asked Forest if he had found god
Forest replied
"I wasn't aware I should have been looking for him Lieutenant"
Concise meaningful coherent
Everything NOT displayed in ping ponging with a pretzel brain
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
We each have our beliefs about the world and what we believe to be real which I expect must define how we view the opinions of others.
We each will claim our subjective reality is an objective reality but reality I feel can only be subjective.
Two people can view the same data but each can will interprete the data differently.
Science uses rules to greatly limit the variation between views upon the interpretation of data so if two people use the same ruler their interpretation will seem to be the same.
However if they come from different countries they may interprete that same measurement differently. And so I may say I own a 150 mm telescope because I live in a country that uses a metric system and yet my friend in the USA will say I own a 6 inch telescope.
We both are correct but even with a matter of measurement we each work within a different reality and it would seem even a matter of measurement becomes a subjective reality even when all will say measurement can only be objective.
Reality can only be a personal experience and therefore subjective in all cases.
We can talk of an objective reality but it is something each of us can not know as we can only view that presumed reality subjectively.
My reality is subjective as is Jan's reality as is everyones reality.
So I view the world thru my reality glasses and see a certain reality and Jan views the world through (his or her) reality glasses and sees a different reality.
Neither of those realities can be said to be objective even if each person feels strongly that their reality is the real and correct one.
Each of us can only work with a subjective reality.
So when two people get to argue they can only argue their subjective reality against the other persons subjective reality but understandably each will believe their subjective reality is the one true so called objective reality.
My reality has no god in any shape or form and in my reality it is simply nonsence to say I am without god, or that god is.... indeed to say anything that suggests my reality includes a god or even the slightest recognition of a god I can and regard as nonsence... That is my subjective reality.
Jan has a different reality, still subjective, but it is different to mine.
And so Jan's subjective reality has a god and to suggest there is no god is simply nonsence.
To qualify an atheist Jans approach can only be to say an atheist is without god because his subjective reality does not entertain a universe where god is not present.
So each of us will accuse the other of repetion in our arguement, mine being the scriptures are made up and Jan that god is...
I can't. imagine either of our realities can ever meet.
So this means I will be offended when Jan says that I am without god and Jan will be offended when I offer a definition from a dictionary hinting there are people for whom god does not exist.
And yet knowing we each only enjoy a subjective reality we argue that ours is the one true objective reality.
And that is crazy for only one of us can be right and thats me... at least we each think that.
Alex
We each will claim our subjective reality is an objective reality but reality I feel can only be subjective.
Two people can view the same data but each can will interprete the data differently.
Science uses rules to greatly limit the variation between views upon the interpretation of data so if two people use the same ruler their interpretation will seem to be the same.
However if they come from different countries they may interprete that same measurement differently. And so I may say I own a 150 mm telescope because I live in a country that uses a metric system and yet my friend in the USA will say I own a 6 inch telescope.
We both are correct but even with a matter of measurement we each work within a different reality and it would seem even a matter of measurement becomes a subjective reality even when all will say measurement can only be objective.
Reality can only be a personal experience and therefore subjective in all cases.
We can talk of an objective reality but it is something each of us can not know as we can only view that presumed reality subjectively.
My reality is subjective as is Jan's reality as is everyones reality.
So I view the world thru my reality glasses and see a certain reality and Jan views the world through (his or her) reality glasses and sees a different reality.
Neither of those realities can be said to be objective even if each person feels strongly that their reality is the real and correct one.
Each of us can only work with a subjective reality.
So when two people get to argue they can only argue their subjective reality against the other persons subjective reality but understandably each will believe their subjective reality is the one true so called objective reality.
My reality has no god in any shape or form and in my reality it is simply nonsence to say I am without god, or that god is.... indeed to say anything that suggests my reality includes a god or even the slightest recognition of a god I can and regard as nonsence... That is my subjective reality.
Jan has a different reality, still subjective, but it is different to mine.
And so Jan's subjective reality has a god and to suggest there is no god is simply nonsence.
To qualify an atheist Jans approach can only be to say an atheist is without god because his subjective reality does not entertain a universe where god is not present.
So each of us will accuse the other of repetion in our arguement, mine being the scriptures are made up and Jan that god is...
I can't. imagine either of our realities can ever meet.
So this means I will be offended when Jan says that I am without god and Jan will be offended when I offer a definition from a dictionary hinting there are people for whom god does not exist.
And yet knowing we each only enjoy a subjective reality we argue that ours is the one true objective reality.
And that is crazy for only one of us can be right and thats me... at least we each think that.
Alex