In regards to atheism.

DaveC426913 said:
Actually, anything you perceive is due to the Giant Cosmic Unicorn, who exists objectively, but you just can't see him.
Show how my idea is less valid than yours.

Oh, wait: I know this one. The GCU exists in my reality, just not in yours.

I am OK with that too.
Click to expand...

I accept anything you think about God, from your erspective

Jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I accept anything you think about God, from your erspective

Jan.
Click to expand...
And I accept anything you think of God, in your subjective experience.

But we have been discussing God's objective existence. And in a thousand posts, your best assertions have yet to make that connection.

So far, all you have demonstrated is that God is in your head.

And I am OK with that.
 
DaveC426913 said:
And I accept anything you think of God, in your subjective experience.

But we have been discussing God's objective existence. And in a thousand posts, your best assertions have yet to make that connection.

So far, all you have demonstrated is that God is in your head.

And I am OK with that.
Click to expand...

As I've been saying all along, I accept your perspective based on your condition.

Jan.
 
Spidergoat is making an excellent point.
One can't call him out on such an argument without shining the same spotlight on Jan's argument. SG's argument is as founded on evidence as Jan's.

So: KSM: do you agree that both SG's and Jan's argument are unsupported?
 
Jan Ardena said:
As I've been saying all along, I accept your perspective based on your condition.
Click to expand...
Yup. Just like the rest of us can accept that the God you speak of is only in your head.
i.e. God is not objective, it is subjective.

The difference between your acceptance and mine is that you know you contradicted yourself (about a hundred times) to make your case.
It falls, not because of anyone else, but by your own words.


Is this about the right time for you to tell me to put a sock in it? :D
 
Last edited:
I think we must remember that reality is a human and personal invention but we have no better ability than a brain in a vat to observe it however each of us will proclaim that our reality is exactly the same as all that exists and any observation we make we can only describe it or talk about it as it fits within our reality, which may have little like comparrision to what may or may not exist leaving a proponent of their reality somewhat ignorant of or not entirely aware of what does and does not physically exist even though one employs one sences that interpreted the physical such as touch or smell which may offer a reasonable attempt to determine existence of some physical thing but of course such an approach would not bring us closer to dealing with something non physical or indeed super natural and I expect we could expand on this approach to conclude that it is therefore unlikely that this matter is far from being clear.:confused:
Alex
 
Jan Ardena said:
So it comes down to adhoms.
Click to expand...
Of all the accusations you could make...

The bulk of your argument, over 1000 posts, has been a brutally repetitive attempt to invalidate the arguer, rather than address the argument itself.

"You can't understand, because of what you are."

That is textbook ad hominem.

How many times have you used it in place of an actual logically-reasoned evidence-based argument? Fifty? A hundred?
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
How could you have believed in something that doesn't exist as far as you're aware.
Click to expand...
The same way that you believe in something that doesn't exist. In our society, we're immersed in fictional gods. It would be almost impossible for a child not to hear about them. We believe in elephants, hippos, unicorns, giraffes, Bigfoot, gods, etc. until we learn which ones really exist and which ones don't.

Now notice you somehow feel that you don't have to explain your position, the way you expect me to do mine.
Click to expand...
I have never hesitated to explain my position. Ask what you will and I'll answer. Conversely, all I ask of you is to think about the real difference between belief in gods and belief in Santa Claus.
 
spidergoat said:
God isn't. Anything you perceive is an illusion. I don't blame you for not knowing this, you are without Zen.
Click to expand...

Not dependent on the written word,
Transmission apart from the scriptures;
Directly pointing at one’s heart,
Seeing one’s nature, becoming Buddha.

Here is a verse from Bhagavad Gita...

Shutting out all external sense objects, keeping the eyes and vision concentrated between the two eyebrows, suspending the inward and outward breaths within the nostrils—thus controlling the mind, senses and intelligence, the tranecendentalist becomes free from desire, fear and anger. One who is always in this state is certainly liberated.

Ultimatey, it is karma-yoga.

Jan.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Spidergoat is making an excellent point.
One can't call him out on such an argument without shining the same spotlight on Jan's argument. SG's argument is as founded on evidence as Jan's.

So: KSM: do you agree that both SG's and Jan's argument are unsupported?
Click to expand...
No . . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top