In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

But thank you for spouting a truism as if it is some deep and meaningful insight

Sometimes it is good to get back to basics.

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.

More of a quality or feature, hence the term characteristic.

Your all far too clever to leave clues lying around. Although occasionally you do slip. When that occurs in future, I'll let you know.

And thus you imply that "God is" is more than just your subjective view and that it is objective reality.

It's my foundation. Just as you have a foundation. You don't feel you have to explain your foundation to me, and that's how I feel.

They are just two different perspectives, that are played out in this temporary manifestation.

The atheist pov is a materialist one, and the theist poverty is a spiritual one.

The atheist does not believe that he is spiritually connected to God, because he cannot comprehend God.

The atheist does not believe in the transmigration of the spiritual soul, because he cannot comprehend that he is anything more than the physical body, and mind.

That is what is meant by spiritual, and your foundation accepts non of these.

Spirit: the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

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

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.

I claim that all views are subjective. Your is no different to mine, other than you don't comprehend God.

I wouldn't say it is a failure, because you could at some point become aware of God. I would say you are currently lacking God.

And there it is: the "No True Scotsman".

Didn't the link mean anything to you?
I'm beginning to think despite all your talk of rationalism, logic, and evidence, that you simply pick and choose stuff that supports your world view. Not very objective. Hey?

We're not the one hiding behind it, Jan.
You are, by committing the fallacy.

I understand the fallacy, so please explain how I've committed it?

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.

When I said earlier that when I forget about God, I obviously act as though God does not exist. Meaning at those points, I am atheist, because God doesn't exist at those points in my comprehension. I was told I was not atheist, or atheistic. I was told I don't know what an atheist is.
You all think that someone is a theist because they say they are, as if that is the qualification.

So if you guys can make judgement calls for the purpose of this thread, so can I.

How can we tell that you are a theist, and that you are not merely saying that you are?

Because I can comprehend God.
The problem is, you have no idea how to comprehend God, and you think it is extremely difficult. Because of this, you extend that to everybody. It is only difficult for the people who say, in their hearts, there is no God.

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?

No they're not, and I doubt very much that you believe that. I know you're a clever chap.

I'm not confusing objective and subjective. You seem to think you're the guardians of this information. Why?

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

Wow. I didn't know I was hated so much.

Perhaps I should have added a lot more Poes

But on the bad news (if you believe in heaven)

I don't believe in heaven so it is my BELIEF you won't go to heaven

I do understand MY beliefs do not affect reality

so if anyone has reality proof of heaven please enlighten me

On the bright side you won't go to hell

Ditto applies to show proof of hell

Best you can hope for some of your constituent atoms end up in the brain of the greatest thinker on Earth

and it is your attoms make the synapse connections which completes the thoughts which saves the World

Well done

See you are useful

 

[Baldeee]

Sometimes it is good to get back to basics.

Then try starting from the basic position of holding no a priori assumptions about the existence or otherwise of God, and go from there.
That's about as basic as it can get.

More of a quality or feature, hence the term characteristic.

Your all far too clever to leave clues lying around. Although occasionally you do slip. When that occurs in future, I'll let you know.

I'll take that as a no, you can't.
So as commented, you are just arguing against your strawman, and hoping that one day we may say something that coincides with what Mr. Strawman might say.

It's my foundation. Just as you have a foundation. You don't feel you have to explain your foundation to me, and that's how I feel.

Well, in a discussion about the foundations, and why we hold them, I would say that explaining them is very much required if one is to have discussion.

They are just two different perspectives, that are played out in this temporary manifestation.

The atheist pov is a materialist one, and the theist poverty is a spiritual one.

Perspectives are subjective.
Why do you continue to assert that it is the objective reality, and do so without supporting it?

The atheist does not believe that he is spiritually connected to God, because he cannot comprehend God.

Or just maybe he can comprehend God but simply feels that it is an unwarranted conclusion.

The atheist does not believe in the transmigration of the spiritual soul, because he cannot comprehend that he is anything more than the physical body, and mind.

And you can not show that it is.
You can not show that his comprehension is wrong.
You can not show that yours is correct.
They are subjective.
Yet you assert it as being objective.

That is what is meant by spiritual, and your foundation accepts non of these.

Spirit: the non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Spiritual: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Again you assert that these are objective.
I can comprehend what these are without accepting them as anything other than part of someone's subjective interpretation of reality.

I claim that all views are subjective.

Yet you argue as if they are objective.
Your language implies as much.

Your is no different to mine, other than you don't comprehend God.

And there you go again, implying that your subjective view is correct, that it is objective.

I wouldn't say it is a failure, because you could at some point become aware of God. I would say you are currently lacking God.

And again you imply that your view is not merely subjective but objective... that God does actually objectively exist.

Didn't the link mean anything to you?

I'm beginning to think despite all your talk of rationalism, logic, and evidence, that you simply pick and choose stuff that supports your world view. Not very objective. Hey?

You mean the link supporting the view that some priests are actually atheist?
Yes, I read it and it is old news.
There is no issue with the notion of some priests being atheists, or indeed with some self-proclaimed theists actually being atheist.
But what you do is judge them not on what they believe or not, but on whether what they say supports your position, and if it doesn't then you dismiss them as not being a true Scotsman.
You have done it in the past whenever any atheist mentions how they were once a theist.
You dismiss it.
Yet you accept people like Anthony Flew for going in the other direction... because you think it supports your case.

I understand the fallacy, so please explain how I've committed it?

Ring any bells yet?

When I said earlier that when I forget about God, I obviously act as though God does not exist. Meaning at those points, I am atheist, because God doesn't exist at those points in my comprehension. I was told I was not atheist, or atheistic. I was told I don't know what an atheist is.

You all think that someone is a theist because they say they are, as if that is the qualification.

So if you guys can make judgement calls for the purpose of this thread, so can I.

If I claim to be a theist then that should be accepted until such time as what I say is not compatible with being a theist.
You claimed to be an atheist yet your comments about yourself were incompatible.
You, however, dismiss on the basis of whether what they say supports your case or not: if it does then they are okay, but if not then there is a reason they are not what they claim to be.

Because I can comprehend God.

Again with the implication of God having an objective existence.
What you mean is that in your worldview God is the cause of all, etc.
Note that such a statement makes no claim as to the objective existence or otherwise of God.
It as valid a worldview as any other that can not be proven or disproven.
The issue is with your continued implication that this worldview is the objective reality.

The problem is, you have no idea how to comprehend God, and you think it is extremely difficult.

On what basis do you claim I have no such idea, or think it is extremely difficult?
Because I am an atheist?
And you think an atheist can not possibly comprehend God?
Oh, what's the name of that fallacy again?

Because of this, you extend that to everybody. It is only difficult for the people who say, in their hearts, there is no God.

When I meet such a person I'll be sure to ask them.
But once again you argue against your strawman.
Doesn't it tire you?

No they're not, and I doubt very much that you believe that. I know you're a clever chap.

Yes, they are.
Yes, I do.
It is because I am a "clever chap" that I can spot the inconsistencies, the contradictions, the muddled explanations.

I'm not confusing objective and subjective.

Then please try not to claim your subjective view as objective.
Please try not to argue your subjective view as though it is objective.
Using terms such as "without God", given how you define "without" implies that God is objectively real, for example.
Every time you use it you are implying that God is objectively real.
Is this what you're claiming, or are you claiming that your view of God is purely your subjective perspective?

You seem to think you're the guardians of this information. Why?

I have no such thoughts.
Please don't blame others for your misunderstandings.

 

[Michael 345]

Every time you use it you are implying that God is objectively real.
Is this what you're claiming, or are you claiming that your view of God is purely your subjective perspective?

I saw something about

the non physical part of the body - the soul

In all the operations I assisted in and autopsies attended I always wondered why I never saw a ' soul '

Because it is not physical

So how being ' not physical ' fit with existing OBJECTIVELY?

 

[spidergoat]

Because I can comprehend God.

Maybe you can ask him why he opposes abortion but created baby cancer.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Why bring heaven into the discussion?

Because you can make me cry.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

It's more about the quality and feature, hence "characteristics".

And thus you imply that "God is" is more than just your subjective view and that it is objective reality.

And you imply that this is more than 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

I imply that atheists are lacking, because they say in their hearts, there is no God.

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

Atheists seem hell bent (no pun) on denying God. Ultimately it is their choice, and not for me to judge ultimately, whether they are wrong.

As far as I am concerned, God Is, is the norm. It is not a test, nor is it so complex that you require a PhD. It is simple enough so that even a child can comprehend it (as has been shown).

We're not the one hiding behind it, Jan.
You are, by committing the fallacy.

Please explain how I have committed 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.

It's the words that allow me to know.
I never dismiss the words.

Tell me, how can you tell when one is a theist or not?

Because they comprehend God.

How can we tell that you are a theist, and that you are not merely saying that you are?

I comprehend God.

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?

This is you letting off steam because you can only go so far. Right?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Because you can make me cry.

Ah that's cute.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I comprehend God.

So humble. I'm glad one of us is omniscient.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Maybe you can ask him why he opposes abortion but created baby cancer.

Maybe.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So humble. I'm glad one of us is omniscient.

Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.

Jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Ah that's cute.

Jan.

So you shun me?

 

[Baldeee]

It's more about the quality and feature, hence "characteristics".

Qualities and features can be exampled.
Yet you can't actually provide examples, as requested.
So simply put, you can't do what was asked.
Fair enough.

And you imply that this is more than your subjective view, and that it is objective reality.

No, I don't.

I imply that atheists are lacking, because they say in their hearts, there is no God.

And you return to your insults. :rolleyes.
You don't just imply, Jan.
You assert it.
And please provide an example where someone has said that there is no God.
Note that a probabilistic answer does discount it from being a valid example, as it leaves open the possibility.

Atheists seem hell bent (no pun) on denying God.

No, they're not.
They just do not have the belief that God does exist.
Few actually give the issue much more consideration than that.
Once again you are asserting that they are wrong, through your use of the word "denying".

Ultimately it is their choice, and not for me to judge ultimately, whether they are wrong.

So now atheism is a choice, despite having previously said otherwise?
And you do judge, Jan, every time you assert that God objectively exists.
By doing that you assert that anyone who does not agree must be wrong.

As far as I am concerned, God Is, is the norm. It is not a test, nor is it so complex that you require a PhD. It is simple enough so that even a child can comprehend it (as has been shown).

No, the report showed a propensity to believe in a superhuman type figure.
To twist that into a belief in God is dishonest.
And of course as far as you're concerned "God is" is the norm: that is your subjective worldview.
Hence "as far as you're concerned".

Please explain how I have committed the fallacy.

Already done.

It's the words that allow me to know.
I never dismiss the words.

Stop lying.
You dismiss the words all the time.
You refuse to listen to what atheists actually say but instead argue against your strawman, so why would you be any different with theists.

Because they comprehend God.

And how do you actually know?
Because they happen to agree with you?
Circular reasoning much?

I comprehend God.

How do you know?
How do you know that what you comprehend actually is God?

This is you letting off steam because you can only go so far. Right?

No, Jan, it's not.
But it is a case of you dismissing the words.
You know, that thing you never do.

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know?
How do you know that what you comprehend actually is God?

This.

 

[Sarkus]

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.

Like Flew "had to"? Why do you think he "had to"?
But it is not denial on my part. It is merely an attempt to honestly make sense of the otherwise confusing mess you come up with. So far it's making sense, if not too revealing, and rather tautological.

If it makes you feel better Sarkus.

Not really. Bit disappointed, to be honest.

No more than you have to show that there is nothing to comprehend.

If I ever make the claim that there is nothing then I'll be sure to try to show it. But since I don't, you seem to be back to facing off against your strawman.
Yoo hoo! Over here, Jan. Now try and focus on the actual person you're discussing with and not the strawman.

These are foundational positions we are dealing with.
To me God Is, and to you, God does not currently exist.

Are they foundational? If so, why do you start with "God is" as your foundation / a priori assumption?
You also have mine wrong: "God not currently existing" is not a foundational issue, even if it did apply to me.

You comprehend concepts.

And you don't? As Baldeee has just stated above, how do you know that what you comprehend has objective existence and is anything more than a concept?

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.

Yoo hoo! Jan! Over here! Your focus has wandered again. Stop facing your strawman, please.
Where have I said that God must be detected by our sense in order to be accepted? Sure, it makes it easier, I don't deny that. But where have I said that it must be?

Why do think that would be so difficult, that I wouldn't know whether I was comprehending God, or not?

The same can be asked of anyone who makes such a claim as to be able to comprehend God. Other than your own confidence in the matter, how do you know that what you comprehend is God?

I'm not quite sure why I should think that. Why do you think I should?

In the absence of asserting the objective existence of God, that's all you're rationally left with doing. So are you asserting the objective existence of God?

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, I don't.

Then neither do I.

And you return to your insults. :rolleyes.
You don't just imply, Jan.
You assert it.

Nope. The scriptures assert it, and it makes sense to me.

And please provide an example where someone has said that there is no God.

No need.
There is, no God, as far as atheists are aware, which is why they are atheist (a priori).

Once again you are asserting that they are wrong, through your use of the word "denying".

No I'm not. If I am asserting anything, I assert that they are correct from their perspectives, and have done so on numerous occasions. I'm surprised you missed it.

''Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose''...

''The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

I think it's a little bit more than advanced humans.

And of course as far as you're concerned "God is" is the norm: that is your subjective worldview.
Hence "as far as you're concerned".

And God does not exist as far as you're aware, is your subjective norm.

Stop lying.
You dismiss the words all the time.
You refuse to listen to what atheists actually say but instead argue against your strawman, so why would you be any different with theists.

Calm down man!
We're just having a discussion.

Once again you are asserting that they are wrong, through your use of the word "denying".

I use the word ''lack'', not, ''wrong''.

And how do you actually know?
Because they happen to agree with you?
Circular reasoning much?

I'm not quite sure why you think it's such a big deal.
Comprehending God, is simple. I guess it must seem extraordinary to you.

How do you know?
How do you know that what you comprehend actually is God?

Why would you think it might not be God?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The same can be asked of anyone who makes such a claim as to be able to comprehend God. Other than your own confidence in the matter, how do you know that what you comprehend is God?

I don't know how to answer that question, as comprehending God is natural. Also not comprehending God, is natural.

If I aksed you how do you know there is currently no good evidence to support the existence of God. What would you say?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the absence of asserting the objective existence of God, that's all you're rationally left with doing. So are you asserting the objective existence of God?

I've already explained how God is defined as existing.
Go, look see.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you shun me?

You're always accusing me of stuff, I have no idea of doing.


jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't know how to answer that question, as comprehending God is natural. Also not comprehending God, is natural.

If I aksed you how do you know there is currently no good evidence to support the existence of God. What would you say?

First I wouldn't say that there isn't, only that I am not aware that there is. Second, I would say that the onus is not on me to demonstrate an absence, but on the one making the positive assertion to show that it is true.