In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Long before I was an atheist, I was a sincere seeker of god, just like you, and there was no presence of god. This is actually a common feeling among theists, even famous ones like Saint Theresa.
Incorrect
A statement cannot be made that something, ANYTHING, exist
but is not recognised
until we find a method to detect it
and provide evidence
IT, whatever IT is, DOES NOT EXIST
PERIOD
Anybody in this thread know of any Science working to develop a god detector?
Wrong . . . .Incorrect
A statement cannot be made that something, ANYTHING, exist
but is not recognised
until we find a method to detect it
and provide evidence
IT, whatever IT is, DOES NOT EXIST
PERIOD
Anybody in this thread know of any Science working to develop a god detector?
Jan said god's effects on the world are objective, so one should be able to distinguish from a universe that contains a god and one that doesn't, otherwise the concept is meaningless. But even if the only sign of god is through a personal relationship, it should be possible to show the evidence of any information communicated that would have been otherwise impossible to know or guess.
Oh! So you was just like me?
What did you do to find God?
How did you decide there was no presence?
Do you know what it is like to find God?
I've already explained your misunderstanding of Mother Teresa's writings. Can you remember?
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Whatever it is - is simply in someone's imagination.
One can assert anything one wants - a cosmic purple unicorn, say - and it is as valid as any other unevidenced fantasy.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Awesome.
An actual Nuh-uuh! spotted in the wild.
They're so rarely seen these days.
Really?????
I mean real REALLY
Having never been to any other Universe I decline to comment on any differences between Universes
Not sure but are you implying that
any information from god
into a believers brain is detectable
outside of the believers brain?
Don't think so
The believer may tell you about what they call evidence and
you can see the WORKINGS of the brain in a CAT scan
But that is the workings not the contents
As I have mentioned before in threads it was fascinating to watch a brain being operated on with the patient awake
Sometimes a fine electrode is used to cauterize fine blood vessels
Frequently the patient would comment on some sort of sensation when the electrode stimulated the nerves of the brain
Obviously the electrode did not contain any sort of information or sensation to impart into the brain
The thoughts ' exist ' only as electrical and chemical reactions
NOT as a independent OBJECTIVE existing entity able to be accessed by anybody
Then Jan is wrong.
There are NO objective effects that are attributable to "god" (unless - as Jan does - one simply claims that "goddidit").
There is nothing, so far, in the universe that does not have a possible scientific explanation: i.e. there is no reason, except unsupported belief, to ascribe anything we see in nature to "god's effect".
Absolutely. And given the stunning lack of such information - over millennia - that pretty much rules out "god" and the claims of "personal relationships" with him/ her/ it.
So all you have are arguments that beg the question?
To clarify, your previous example follows thus:
God is defined as that which grants the ability to understand.
You can understand.
Therefore this is evidence of God.
Your example begs the question, Jan. This is not disputable. If you do so then you are simply wrong.
So I ask again, do you have anything that does not beg the question?
Implicit within God being the cause of all, is it not?
So I didn't say it, although you make it seem as though I did. That seems to be the sad case with all the atheists who post in this thread. They put words into the theists mouth, and then base their argument on that. Hence they don't need to debate with actual theists.
I would sooner focus on the atheist, and atheism, in this thread. Especially as it "in regards to atheism". Rather than the off-topic subject that obsesses every card carrying atheists, Does God Exist".
I think it has been clearly established here, that God does not exist for atheists, and will never exist as long as one remains atheist.
All that is left for the atheist is to assert that his/her world view is right and anything that is not in agreement is wrong (strangely enough this characteristic is present in most pop religions).
The reality is that as an atheist, you cannot go any further than your atheism.
Jan.
Post 1609 - troll.
Jan, if you say X and X validly leads to conclusion Y then you saying X is equivalent to you saying Y. This is how logic works. If you logically implied something then it as though you have stated it, and you should take ownership and responsibility for those implications as though they are putting words in your mouth.
It is nothing but utter disdain for for this forum and other users that you only want to take responsibility for the exact words you have used and not the logical implications, and that you then try to accuse others of picking up on your implications.
So take responsibility, Jan.
If God is the cause of all then God is necessarily the cause of us being able to understand.
This is logically valid, and thus the conclusion is implicit in what you have stated (that God is the cause of all).
So going back to your previous answer, the implication of your view of God as cause of all leads to the following syllogism...
God is the cause of us being able to understand.
We can understand.
Therefore God exists.
... which is begging the question.
And whether or not it is my prerogative to disagree with you or not, it is irrelevant to the fact that your answers begged the question.
So, do you have any other examples that do not beg the question?
So you want to focus on the atheist, who at the core of their position is the question of whether or not God exists, rather than the topic of whether or not God exists, which you consider to be off-topic???
Despite this clearly being an attempt at evasion from the questions asked of you, it is by understanding the issues around whether or not God exists that you will understand why atheists are atheists, i.e. why they do not hold belief that God exists. Oh, I forgot, you have your answer already: "because they are without God".
It has not been established. All you have done is repeated it ad nauseam.
Furthermore, it is a rather obvious truism that an atheist will be an atheist for as long as they remain an atheist, regardless of the causes for the atheism, or what atheism actually entails.
Just as you will be wrong for as long as you are wrong. When you are not wrong then you will, unsurprisingly, not be wrong.
Few atheists seem to assert that their view is right and that the theist is wrong. If you can find a few examples from this thread, that would be a start?
And if you can show that there is indeed somewhere meaningfully further to go, your comment may actually have some value.
I didn't state... "God is defined as that which grants the ability to understand."
- beautiful-minded person.
Jan.
So you want to focus on the atheist, who at the core of their position is the question of whether or not God exists, rather than the topic of whether or not God exists, which you consider to be off-topic???
From Wiki...
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.
In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
I prefer to keep it to this definition, as I don't believe that the question of God's existence is even present. At least not in this thread anyways.
Oh, I forgot, you have your answer already: "because they are without God".
That is partly the answer, God does not exist for atheists, is the reason they are without God.
Sometime obvious truism are necessary to get back to basics.
There's no point, we may as well just deal with what is on the table.
Jan.