In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, there is only one truth. There is no such thing as existing "for you".

It is true that God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, and I accept that God Is.

This is called the fallacy of special pleading.

No it's not.
It is what it is

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The only reason theism needs to give a name to those who refute it is the unwarranted political power this idea has enjoyed for centuries.

You don't really have a name for your position. You're described as being opposite to the norm (A-Theos = Without God).

Lack of belief is actually the default position, since we are born that way, and at some point become convinced, conditioned, seduced, or bullied into accepting it at some point.

Not according to that scientific experiment (which all atheists will deny).

If you really accept what you say, it is evidential that God does not exist as far as you're aware.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheists do. There's nothing wrong with such attempts at persuasion.

Everything is wrong with that.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

It is true that God doesn't exist as far as you're aware, and I accept that God Is.

That means either one of us is correct. But not both.

No it's not.
It is what it is

"It is what it is" is a meaningless statement. Logical fallacies should not be in dispute, they describe long established errors in logic. I enjoy our chats, but we are done here in terms of you proving your position. You can't, and most theists know that, which is why they emphasize faith, which is the adoption of fake knowledge.Namely, the fake knowledge that god exists.

Not according to that scientific experiment (which all atheists will deny).

You misinterpreted that study. At best it shows that when young, people are more gullible, and have a tendency to believe in magic and gods. What it doesn't show is that people are born with a concept of god.

 

[Sarkus]

So it is.

So you claim.

I have repeatedly supported it.

You have repeatedly asserted it... as you do in your next line...

God does not currently exist for any atheist.

See.

Does God Exist as you read this post?

I don't know.

No?
Then it is true.

But since my answer isn't "no" you should stop arguing against the strawman in your backyard.

How do you know that you CAN NOT know God?

I don't know that I can not ever know, but to know God I must first know that God exists, and while I do not know that I can not know God.

Lacking belief in something that does not exist, is done because that thing doesn't exist.

Who says I am lacking belief in something that does not exist? I haven't said that. I have said I merely lack belief that God does exist. I also lack belief that God does not exist. I lack those beliefs because I do not know whether God exists or not.
Simple, really.

So the whole reason for your position is because God does not exist as far as you're aware

No, the whole reason for my position is because I don't know if God does exist or not. I am not aware either way. Therefore it is wrong for you to say that "as far as I'm aware" God does not exist.

There's no getting round it.

Not if you continue to misrepresent my position and confuse it for that of your strawman.

You should tell that to Alex. You did say you wouldn't mind evidence of God's non existence.

I wouldn't. Where is it?

None.

On no basis whatsoever? Now you're just being facetious.

Natural.

Ah, so you are of the opinion the way we think when a young child should be considered the default?

I can see why you would deny it, given your position, and the bulldogish way you defend it.

When you stop confusing my position for that of your strawman, maybe your comments would have some value. Until then, though...

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't know

I didn't ask what you know.
God either exists or God doesn't exist.
That you may come to know that God exists, does not change the fact that, right at this moment God does not exist, as far as you are aware.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ah, so you are of the opinion the way we think when a young child should be considered the default?

I think God Is, as perspective, is totally natural.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not if you continue to misrepresent my position and confuse it for that of your strawman.

It's not a strawman.

Who says I am lacking belief in something that does not exist?

It comes with your position.

I haven't said that. I have said I merely lack belief that God does exist. I also lack belief that God does not exist.

Because God does not currently exist for you.
We can go at this till the end of never if you like.
But the fact is, God does not currently exist for you.

Jan.

 

[karenmansker]

Jan . . . . dittos . . . . IMO, we all (1) WILL eventually find out who is correct . . . or (2) we (all) WON'T. If 1, then theists have a head start . . . if 2, doesn't matter and all of these arguments are moot.

ps/IMO, let's make the most of our head start!/ksm

 

[spidergoat]

I think God Is, as perspective, is totally natural.

Jan.

Doesn't make it true. Your line of reasoning is faulty. The question isn't whether god exists for you or for me, the question is whether such a thing exists at all. What is it's effect on the world, such that it's existence is distinguishable from it's absence? You claim that religious scriptures are true, and they describe all sorts of external events controlled by god. Are they wrong about this?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think God Is, as perspective, is totally natural.

God is as natural... And I'll learn to become a master chef starting July 1.

Or, God is weed itself?

 

[Sarkus]

I didn't ask what you know.
God either exists or God doesn't exist.
That you may come to know that God exists, does not change the fact that, right at this moment God does not exist, as far as you are aware.

As far as I am aware I do not know that God exists or does not exist. God may exist for me. He may not. Why do you struggle so much with this concept that you have to insist upon your own version of what I am relating to you rather than what I actually relate?
And you are asking me what I know. If you ask me a question then if I know I can give you an answer. If I don't know then I can only tell you that I don't know.

I think God Is, as perspective, is totally natural.

We may have a natural tendency toward believing in a superior being, but that is a far cry from "God is". And being natural does not make it necessarily the default position one should take when applying rational and critical thinking.

It's not a strawman.

Yes, it is. You refuse to argue against what is actually written but instead insist upon your own version and argue against that instead. This is the very definition of it being a strawman.

It comes with your position.

So you think I am lacking belief in something that does not exist? For you to state that you must think that God does not exist. Otherwise you could only say that you think I am lacking belief in something that does exist. I certainly don't think that God does not exist. I have expressed as much on numerous occasions. For you to assert otherwise is simply you continuing to argue against your strawman.

Because God does not currently exist for you.

So you keep asserting.

We can go at this till the end of never if you like.
But the fact is, God does not currently exist for you.

So you keep asserting.
You simply fail to comprehend the agnostic view, Jan. You have done for, oh, a long time now. Until you grasp it you will never argue against anything other than your strawman, or against those few atheists who do actually hold the same views as your strawman.

 

[DaveC426913]

Cite quote?

For the dozenth time? OK.

You've also asserted that God does "not exist" for some people.
You've also asserted that "existence" is an objective property.

Since "existence" is objective, that means God does not exist objectively - i.e. not just for some, but for everyone - which includes you.

Since you simultaneously assert that God does exist, your stance is self-contradictory. That invalidates it. You've lost.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think God Is, as perspective, is totally natural.

It is perfectly all right for you (or anyone) to think anything they want.
I certainly have no problem with you thinking God is however you like.
Because what you think is what is in your head.
And if it stayed there, there would be no thread.

But you have chosen to put your faith on the table, and assert that it is outside your head.
Yet you have no evidence.

More to the point:
"God Is" has meaning to you, in your head. That's fine.
It has no meaning outside your head. (because you made it up for your own sake).

When you try to assert that it has any external meaning, that is where you run afoul of rational thought.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doesn't make it true.

Nothing anyone says, make what they say, true.

Your line of reasoning is faulty. The question isn't whether god exists for you or for me, the question is whether such a thing exists at all.

God isn't a thing that exists, like other things. If that's what you're waiting for to show that God Is, then you're going to be atheist for a long time.

What is it's effect on the world, such that it's existence is distinguishable from it's absence?

The world is God's effect, and without God there would be no world, or minds to perceive it with. That's part of the definition of God.

You claim that religious scriptures are true, and they describe all sorts of external events controlled by god. Are they wrong about this?

You have to come to that conclusion for yourself. But you have to look at it with a clear mind.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

God isn't a thing that exists, like other things. If that's what you're waiting for to show that God Is, then you're going to be atheist for a long time.

Right. So pseudo-science.

The world is God's effect, and without God there would be no world, or minds to perceive it with. That's part of the definition of God.

So you assert.
It is as true or as unfalsifiable as that we were sneezed out of the nose of the Argleblaster.

You have to come to that conclusion for yourself. But you have to look at it with a clear mind.

Psychologist's fallacy: an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective.

It is more meaningful to assert that it is the rationalists who have the clear mind - since rationalists are insisting on something more substantial than your unevidenced claims.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As far as I am aware I do not know that God exists or does not exist. God may exist for me. He may not.

Are you currently aware of God?

Why do you struggle so much with this concept that you have to insist upon your own version of what I am relating to you rather than what I actually relate?

Because the reality of your position is that God does not exist. All your reasoning stems from that. Otherwise you wouldn't need to ask for evidence.

We may have a natural tendency toward believing in a superior being, but that is a far cry from "God is".

You don't know that, because as far as you're aware there is no God. That is either what you observe, or what you read. Or both

Yes, it is. You refuse to argue against what is actually written but instead insist upon your own version and argue against that instead. This is the very definition of it being a strawman.

I accept what is written, and I accept what you say about your position. I am looking at the basis of atheist reasoning. There is no God for them to believe in.

And being natural does not make it necessarily the default position one should take when applying rational and critical thinking.

It's not that complex, Sarkus.

So you think I am lacking belief in something that does not exist? For you to state that you must think that God does not exist. Otherwise you could only say that you think I am lacking belief in something that does exist.

Not from your perspective.

For you to assert otherwise is simply you continuing to argue against your strawman.

Sarkus, you aren't aware of God, therefore God cannot actually exist from that perspective. That you think need evidence, and critical thinking, just to know that God Is, kind of gives that away.

You simply fail to comprehend the agnostic view, Jan.

The agnostic view is an intellectual one. It states that we cannot know God, regardless of whether He exists or not. It is not practical.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sarkus, you aren't aware of God, therefore God cannot actually exist from that perspective.

This has been refuted time and time again.

You are guilty of trolling - interfering with the discussion by repeatedly posting the same refuted assertion - as if saying it over an over will make it less wrong.

 

[DaveC426913]

The agnostic view is an intellectual one. It states that we cannot know God, regardless of whether He exists or not. It is not practical.

Interesting that you, of all people, would suggest practicality as a criterion.

It is far more practical than your special "God Is" chant.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

The agnostic view is an intellectual one. It states that we cannot know God, regardless of whether He exists or not. It is not practical.

Or, that we just simply don't know.

Semantics is really what this thread is about now, right? And if that is the truth, well that should be quite practical, I think.