In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Sorry, no. They were just as theist as you are, but they came to understand that the feeling that there is a god can be generated, it doesn't necessarily correspond to anything real. Similar feelings can be generated through all kinds of practices. You yourself can't confirm it's anything real. It's definitely the no true Scottsman argument. THEY weren't the true god person, they were only following a false religion.
You're wrong there too. I'm not claiming that god exists or doesn't exist. I can claim that your argument is deeply flawed. You claim you don't even need an argument, that theism and atheism aren't the result of logical deduction, but the result of god either haunting your life or not. Since it's not an argument, I don't even need to refute it.
I dont have beliefs in any God(s) an im more moral than anybody i know of... soooooo......
Anybody can be moral, according to their perspective of what is right or wrong. Why do you ask?
jan.
So, I can go to heaven if I don't believe in God?
Last edited:
Kind of . . . . . . C.Y.A., eh? . . . . . JUST in case!!
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nobody does.
Except you. Remember? You made that term up yourself - right here.
No one has ever even heard the term, let alone your description of it.
I guess we are all here to witness the founding of The Church of Jan.
A long as you have never heard of it. But now you have.
NopeStraight to hell
You might even have a added punishment of going to heaven
Putting one foot inside the Pearlie Gates before being told
Oops mistake
Pulled out and sent to hell
god has a wicked sense of humour
karenmansker:
The reason doesn't have to be scientific. Indeed, it could be completely irrational or based on some kind of prejudice.
The same thing applies to theism, of course. The theist believe that there is a God or gods, for whatever reason. The reason could be completely irrational or based on some kind of prejudice.
An atheist is just somebody who - for whatever reason - does not believe that God exists.
The reason doesn't have to be scientific. Indeed, it could be completely irrational or based on some kind of prejudice.
The same thing applies to theism, of course. The theist believe that there is a God or gods, for whatever reason. The reason could be completely irrational or based on some kind of prejudice.
AMEN! (no pun intended!). . . . . So after over 1300 posts arguing both sides, we are no closer to resolving the arguments/issues. Kudos!! Your post is a good summary of both sides! (HSIRI!)
His argument isn't quite so open. Jan simply asserts that God does actually exist, and that atheists can't comprehend God, and are thus unable to see God. He asserts "God is" as more than simply a subjective worldview but that it is objective reality. Jan is incapable of imagining anything without God actually existing. To him God is a necessity for anything to exist, and thus anything that exists is evidence that "God is".
Thus it is not a case of him claiming that nobody can be atheist unless God actually exists, but that, since God does exist, atheists are therefore "without God" ("without" meaning - to Jan - not having that which otherwise does exist).
Translation: "That's okay Sarkus. You are someone who doesn't share my worldview."
Translation: "If you don't share my world view."
So, via translation, we have you asserting that I am someone who doesn't share your worldview because I am someone who doesn't share your worldview.
Simples, you see.
False dilemma, Jan - there are more options.
But that aside... first, you have yet to show that there is anything to comprehend. Second, why do you equate lacking comprehension of God with being an atheist? One is quite capable of comprehending something but simply not being aware of it's existence.
Furthermore, who is to say that you comprehend God? All you can say is that you believe in what you do comprehend as God. But who is to say that what you think you comprehend actually is God? Why do you think it is not merely a subjective worldview that helps you make sense of your existence, but with no actual objective existence?
Things are always what they are... until they change.
That is what it means to be something.
But thank you for spouting a truism as if it is some deep and meaningful insight.
Please can you provide any quote of mine, JamesR, Sarkus etc from this thread that states this position?
Please can you post anything from this thread by them that even suggests such a position?
No, you can't.
Once again you are arguing against the strawman you have built for yourself.
You say it every time you claim "God is".
You say it every time that you claim God is more than just a subjective view of the world.
You say it every time you say that "for you God does not exist".
You say it every time you say that the atheist is "without God" and that one can only be "without" that something that actually exists.
And thus you imply that "God is" is more than just your subjective view and that it is objective reality.
Yes, you claim that the atheist subjective view is one that does not have God, but you imply that this is a failing on their part, that they are oblivious to something.
After all, one can not be oblivious to something that is not part of reality.
So from the very words you use you imply that you are correct and the atheist is wrong.
And there it is: the "No True Scotsman".
We're not the one hiding behind it, Jan.
You are, by committing the fallacy.
And yet you claim to be able to know when one is a theist or not, by dismissing the words of some who claim to be, or have been, theists.
Tell me, how can you tell when one is a theist or not?
How can we tell that you are a theist, and that you are not merely saying that you are?
I mean, your arguments are all over the shop, contradictory, confusing with regard subjective and objective etc, that you can't seriously be a theist, right?
Wow. I didn't know I was hated so much.
Straight to hell
You might even have a added punishment of going to heaven
Putting one foot inside the Pearlie Gates before being told
Oops mistake
Pulled out and sent to hell
god has a wicked sense of humour
I understand why you translate it Sarkus. It is a denial. You have to see the world from an atheist perspective, like Flew had to in his heyday.
If it makes you feel better Sarkus.
No more than you have to show that there is nothing to comprehend.
These are foundational positions we are dealing with.
To me God Is, and to you, God does not currently exist.
You comprehend concepts. You tend to gravitate towards concepts of God that, from a naturalistic ideology, meaning God must be detected by our gross senses, like other things, in order to be accepted.
Why do think that would be so difficult, that I wouldn't know whether I was comprehending God, or not?
I'm not quite sure why I should think that. Why do you think I should?
Jan.
Last edited: