In regards to atheism.

[Jan Ardena]

You keep referring to this mysterious blob of knowledge that supposedly you know but we don't. The burden lies with you to present this blob of knowledge.

If we cannot comprehend your argument, here, in this discussion, that is because you have been unable to make it, here, in this discussion.

My argument in this discussion is the the original meaning of the term "atheists, relate to all atheists. That is to say that atheists are without God.

That you have worked that, as this is the case, God must Be, is an entirely different debate, or discussion, is not the point of the discussion, or the the thread.

I have presented my explanations, which I know you comprehend. But in a desperate bid to avoid discussing this "In regards to atheism", you switch the thread to a "Does God exist" one.

If you can't, then you've lost your argument.


You can't. You've lost your argument.

It's all about winning and losing to you, isn't it?

Jan.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

That is to say that atheists are without God.

Stop telling God what to do.

 

[spidergoat]

That is to say that atheists are without God.

You do know that definitions are just assertions made by the person or group of people that write dictionaries?

Nature, information, knowledge, and experience.

jan.

Nature is a non-starter, we have scientific explanations for nature. If information, what information, the dictionary? What knowledge? What experience that could not be explained any other way?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nature is a non-starter, we have scientific explanations for nature.

So what?

If information, what information, the dictionary? What knowledge? What experience that could not be explained any other way?

Your protests apply to anyone, with any belief/non-belief. Including your protestations.

You need to narrow it down a bit.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Stop telling God what to do.

OK.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

That is the summary.

Your evasion is noted.

Quote where I agreed.

??? I'm asking a question. Do you agree with it or not? If someone asks you if you agree that Paris is the capital of France, do you ask them to quote where you have agreed it?

You don't need me in this discussion. Do you?

Why? Is your strawman calling for you?
Your value to this thread has been non-existent for a while, and it has remained questionable for far longer whether there was actual discussion where you're concerned.

You can, because God does not currently exist as far as you're aware.

I don't know that and you can't possibly know that. Unless you're me? Oh, I get it, you think I'm your strawman!
No. I'm not your strawman, Jan.

The blank slate is devoid of comprehension, and awareness of God.
IOW God does not exist, hence the the term "blank".

That is merely the starting point, Jan.

Anything to do with God, is confusing to you. Because you cannot comprehend God.

The concept of God really isn't that confusing at all. What is confusing is why some people adhere to / belief in it and why some don't; why some adhere to it but are happy in their adherence being simply through faith, while others, such as yourself, feel the need to assert that it is something more than that yet seem unable to articulate why, or provide anything in your arguments other than flannel, garbage and strawmen.
But the concept of God itself? No, surprisingly easy once you sweep away the guff.

So, to return: do you believe that God has an objective existence, or a wholly subjective one?

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is merely the starting point, Jan.

Precisely.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What is confusing is why some people adhere to / belief in it and why some don't;

Why is that confusing?

why some adhere to it but are happy in their adherence being simply through faith, while others, such as yourself, feel the need to assert that it is something more than that yet seem unable to articulate why, or provide anything in your arguments other than flannel, garbage and strawmen

It must have struck a nerve Sarkus, as you seem emotionally distraught by the revelation that the reason God does not exist as far as you're aware, is because you yourself have made a subconscious decision, there is no God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

??? I'm asking a question. Do you agree with it or not? If someone asks you if you agree that Paris is the capital of France, do you ask them to quote where you have agreed it?

You're original point was this...

Okay, so you agree that you can be aware of wholly subjective things?

I replied "where". Meaning where have I agreed to it. Duh!

Can you you quote where I did?

Jan.

 

[pluto2]

Any God that creates something like infant leukemia is not love. At best it's indifferent. At worst it's our enemy.

There's not a single evidence whatever that the god you believe in exists.

Religion build around those gods are usually contradictory. Being almighty is also a contradiction.

Also thinking that if a god exists, he would care about you, is extremely arrogant.

Also most "fairy tails" about what god did make him seem like a monster and if he does exist, we would have to do everything we can to kill it.

http://www.evilbible.com/
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/god.html

 

[Sarkus]

Precisely.

So how did you move from there to believing in God?
What was it that convinced you that God exists, that God is as per the descriptions in some books?

 

[Sarkus]

Why is that confusing

Let me clarify: it's not confusing that some do and some don't - that much is patently obvious. It is the reasons for those differences, especially those that are radically different to mine, that are oft confusing, and the way those reasons are elucidated (or not) by those that hold them.

It must have struck a nerve Sarkus, as you seem emotionally distraught by the revelation that the reason God does not exist as far as you're aware, is because you yourself have made a subconscious decision, there is no God.

Lol! Emotionally distraught? Are you for real?
Whatever, Jan. You just keep making shit up, why don't you. When it actually bears any resemblance to reality I'll be sure to let you know.

 

[Sarkus]

You're original point was this...

Okay, so you agree that you can be aware of wholly subjective things?

I replied "where". Meaning where have I agreed to it. Duh!

Can you you quote where I did?

WTF??? What you have highlighted is a simple question, Jan.
Maybe you're being thrown off by your misunderstanding of the use of "so"... it isn't always used as a "therefore" or "for this reason". Sometimes it is simply a word to try and move things along. In this case I am simply trying to ask you a question - as I have explained.

Let me ask it again: are you in agreement that you can be aware of wholly subjective things?

There - not too difficult for you to understand, is it?
I await your continued evasion.

 

[Michael 345]

I await your continued evasion.

You won't be disappointed

I always wonder who are the authors of those brilliant books from the series

' xxxxx For Dummies '?

Either you are in a posting chat (to much of a stretch to say discussion)

with the author of

Evasion and How Not to Answer Questions for Dummies

or

someone who has swallowed the book whole and is regurgitating it bit by bit

 

[Jan Ardena]

So how did you move from there to believing in God?
What was it that convinced you that God exists, that God is as per the descriptions in some books

What does this have to do with regards to atheism.
We know that you, as an atheist, started out with a blank slate. Meaning there was no God, meaning God did not exist as far as you were aware, and still doesn't exist as far as you're aware.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Let me ask it again: are you in agreement that you can be aware of wholly subjective things?

Give me an example of a wholly subjective thing.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You won't be disappointed

I always wonder who are the authors of those brilliant books from the series

' xxxxx For Dummies '?

Either you are in a posting chat (to much of a stretch to say discussion)

with the author of

Evasion and How Not to Answer Questions for Dummies

or

someone who has swallowed the book whole and is regurgitating it bit by bit

Ah! You sound like you need a hug, and a reassuring pat on the back to let you know everything is going to be alright.



Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Let me clarify: it's not confusing that some do and some don't - that much is patently obvious. It is the reasons for those differences, especially those that are radically different to mine, that are oft confusing, and the way those reasons are elucidated (or not) by those that hold them.

I'm still not following you. Can you give an example?

Lol! Emotionally distraught? Are you for real?
Whatever, Jan. You just keep making shit up, why don't you. When it actually bears any resemblance to reality I'll be sure to let you know.

I am for real Sarkus. You have been acting irrational, and emotional for a good while now. I'm wondering when we can just go back to discussing, like we used to.

Try and bear in mind, there's nothing personal in what I say. I'm just interested in discussing these things.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Any God that creates something like infant leukemia is not love. At best it's indifferent. At worst it's our enemy.

So you accept God Is, but you don't like, or believe in Him?

There's not a single evidence whatever that the god you believe in exists.

So you know of every single piece of evidence that is in existence?

Religion build around those gods are usually contradictory. Being almighty is also a contradiction.

Why is it?

Also thinking that if a god exists, he would care about you, is extremely arrogant.

I'm sorry to keep asking questions, but I find your knowledge of God interesting, and would like to know more.

Also most "fairy tails" about what god did make him seem like a monster and if he does exist, we would have to do everything we can to kill it.

So you think if God exists, He can be killed? Do you think you may the wrong concept of God?

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why?

I'll explain again:

Any form of 'you cannot understand' is an attack upon the person, not the argument. That's an ad hom.

Everyone here is educated well-enough to understand any reasoned argument, provided it's not gibberish in the first place. So, the comprehension disconnect is on your end. When you say such things as "God Is; You cannot comprehend." what you are actually saying is "I (Jan) am unable to express my thought in a way that someone else can understand."

That's your shortcoming.

And it's a cop-out because you have no intention of taking responsibility for making up terms and then pretending other people are at fault for not 'comprehending' them.

You argue in bad faith. And you know it full well.

Shame.