DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So you feel that they both stand on their own without need for facts or references.
In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Yes . . . . . is that the answer you are trolling for?
Apparently you don't since you earlier stated that you don't agree that SG's and Jan's argument are unsupported.
If there is support then they don't "stand on their own without need for facts or references".
So which is it?
Supported or not?
PS, it appears that you accused the wrong person for trolling, perhaps you should look closer to home.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And here we are at easter at time that children are bribed, to remember, with chocolate eggs but as they grow the image of a happy rabbit is replaced with an image of a most horrible death and alleged sacrifice of life by one human pretending to be the mortal son of a supernatural but made up entity, and such image designed to foster guilt that a god was robbed of his only son so the sinful humans could have that only son take those sins with him to his grave...but not for long for being the son of god and therefore actually immortal the role of playing dead only went on for three days and then, rather than getting back umoungst the living to help out as one would hope a god could do and after a few ghost like appearances, vanishes forever but not before making an as yet unfulfilled promise to one day return.
A transparent attempt to steal from pagan custom on the one hand and an attempt to parallel the death of a human and the perceived death and rebirth of the Sun, as superstitious folk would have the Sun die at the end of winter, remain dead for three days as it appears to maintain its position and then move off as they would have it reborn.
But the chocolate eggs disappear whilst the cross remains to reinforce the guilt.
Happy easter everyone.
Alex
A transparent attempt to steal from pagan custom on the one hand and an attempt to parallel the death of a human and the perceived death and rebirth of the Sun, as superstitious folk would have the Sun die at the end of winter, remain dead for three days as it appears to maintain its position and then move off as they would have it reborn.
But the chocolate eggs disappear whilst the cross remains to reinforce the guilt.
Happy easter everyone.
Alex
I had the local branch of one sub-set of god-botherers turn up on my doorstep yesterday[1] handing out free (cold) hot cross buns (well, one per person...).
1 "Good Friday"? It wasn't that good for Jesus, was it?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Any publicity is good publicity.
Alex
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This contradicts your earlier post.
When Spidergoat said:
you responded with:
Yet, now when asked if you think his argument stands on its own, without facts or references, you say yes.
Clarify?
DaveC still trolling . . . . Mods . . . any remedy for such behavior?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Admit you are wrong, promise never to be wrong again and beg for forgiveness.
.I am never wrong so if in doubt about anything just ask.
Main thing is remain happy even when you get sad.
Alex
Asking for clarification hardly constitutes trolling.
On the other hand, contradicting yourself and then whining when asked to clarify is pretty damned close.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So that was an amusing sidetrack. Let's start afresh back at post 1066.
You're not aware of it, which is why it doesn't exist as far as you're aware.
You're not in a position to say God does not exist, as a fact.
You have no comprehension, or awareness of God, meaning you can't comment on people who are aware, saying their comprehension, and awareness, are false.
Unless of course you think your current awareness of reality, is the one true awareness. Is that what you really think?
We're immersed in lots of things, why pick on ficticiuos gods.
Well let's see.
How do you know God doesn't exist?
How do you know that theist believe an entity, commonly known as God, that doesn't exist?
Do you think it is possible that atheists are incapable, of being aware of God?
As a theist, I spend quite a considerable amount of my life not being aware of God, because my mind wanders. So I have some experience of being atheistic. But in the cold light of day, when my mind is, or I'm discussing God, with the likes of you. I have no problem.
Jan.
SP is somehow under the impression that because "zen" is a word associated with Buddhism, and Buddhistm is associated with atheism, that it is an atheist concept.
He couldn't be further from the truth. Buddha had no problem with the obvious existence of God, as the Absolute Truth, and the Vedas a literary incarmation of God.
Buddha chose not to impart that knowledge to his disciples, as they had lost the capacity to perceive it.
If you like, we'll have a look at some of the quotes by Buddha that shows this, although there is a good chance you will deny it.
I now understand why Buddha didn't impart that knowledge, but taught meditation.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Jan, this stance does not enlighten the discussion.
Your argument is: "my perspective is right, and yours is flawed and there's noting you can do about it".
It is every bit as valid as the counter argument, which is simply saying you are delusional in your belief of God, you just can't see it.
It would be trivial for us to simply declare it, go to our corner, and be done with the discussion - but frankly, people are actually giving you more credit than you are giving them. Because they are assessing analyzing your stance, and analyzing it. We're not simply gas-lighting you, as you are trying to do to us.
The idea behind a discussion is to base it on common elements - things we both concede to. Which is why we have been trying to ensure we are talking about the same objective reality.
If you want to simply keep repeating the same ad hom, then your contribution to the thread topic approaches zero.
It IS
ZERO
Has been zero from the get go
Will never fly
You cannot base the existence of ANYTHING on mere say so beliefs
Obviously you haven't been paying attention.
Both our perspectives are right.
As a perspective, yes.
You are currently without God (atheist), and the the obvious reason is that you aren't currently aware of God, hence, ultimately, God does not exist. You now wish to extend that to everyone for whom it it obvious that God Is.
The discussion was done a long time ago.
God does not exist as far as you're aware, hence you are without God. That is as far as you can go with regards discussing God.
Regarding your position, everything I've described about atheist, is correct. Just because you don't like it, makes no difference to that.
Not quite sure what you mean by gas-lightimg.
I remember saying God Is. Why don't you deal with that.
Oh! You are currently unable to.
Why don't you you just admit it? You have nowhere else to go.
It is unfortunate that you see your true position as offensive to you. Know that I accept, and respect your position, as long as you don't assert that everyone in the world, past and present, sees, and observes reality the way you do, and if they say any different, they are either delusional, lying, or both.
It's time to stop that nonsense and accept the real meaning of atheist, and prove it by seeing what every single atheist has in common.
You are all without God, because God does not exist as far as you are aware,
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan I think below is what you are up against.
I googled atheist and this appeared.
atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun
- a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
But this thread perhaps was about more than the meaning of the word atheist.
Each "side" has argued well and given that when we ask what is the "real argument" about I am prepared to guess it is about belief in god.
I think all would agree that you as are others entitled to believe whatever they wish.
Where the wheels fall off is it seems each side nevertheless tend to interpret the world, their and other, via their beliefs.
AND so we go around and around.
It came up in respect of evidence as to God that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and like so many happy little sayings everyone accepts it as the end of the matter.
However clearly the saying could be expanded to "absence of evidence, although not absolute evidence of absence does not remove the burden of proof that must rest with those who are unable to produce evidence, and indeed absence of evidence on balance is a reasonable indication of absence"
It is in this context that I think it is reasonable to remind all that belief is subjective and that to approach others assuming your belief is objective is not polite.
And I have been guilty of doing this.
There are times when I think you approach the matter in a similar way and show signs of being subjective but then with respect your presentation can become coloured by your belief (as does mine) such it seems you treat God as a fact for all.
At least I have changed my statement to...God is real but does not exist...and I thank you because I realised if we start with ...God is...each of us is entitled to fill in the missing bits.
And to develop the above a little further I end up with..God is real in the minds of some but does not exist for me.
I think I have at least become more able to tolerate even though I still feel religion is the greatest con in history.
Alex
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan it should not be difficult to accept word meanings change over time.
I could make a list of words where the meaning has changed in my lifetime.
I can remember when a joint was a night club for example.
Do you not think it would not be somewhat foolish if I were to insist that a joint is a night club when all no longer recognise that meaning.
A surrender upon the current meaning by you does not mean you were not correct as to the original meaning but doggedly insisting the meaning in the dictionary is not now the cirrent meaning is not good for you and frankley it is not in keeping with the respect I hold for you...you seem to be flogging a dead horse but don't realise it won't stand up ever again.
Anyways great thread, excellent performance and I see no reason for it to end.
Alex
I could make a list of words where the meaning has changed in my lifetime.
I can remember when a joint was a night club for example.
Do you not think it would not be somewhat foolish if I were to insist that a joint is a night club when all no longer recognise that meaning.
A surrender upon the current meaning by you does not mean you were not correct as to the original meaning but doggedly insisting the meaning in the dictionary is not now the cirrent meaning is not good for you and frankley it is not in keeping with the respect I hold for you...you seem to be flogging a dead horse but don't realise it won't stand up ever again.
Anyways great thread, excellent performance and I see no reason for it to end.
Alex