My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[Jan Ardena]

I personally vote we go the "Victor Esperenza" route and simply condense all the word salad into a single thread in Alt Theories to contain the crazy there...

...

But that's just me

I understand that you don't agree with me, and I know I'm not the best writer, by far.
But what is it you don't get?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Can't keep away can you?

I try to, Jan, but your incessant twaddle just keeps me so amused that at some point I feel I have to contribute.

James didn't say that, he said; "Your argument here is that nobody can believe or lack belief in anything unless God exists.''
Of course it is only possible to believe in something that exists, or at least you think exists.

Not disputed.

Lacking belief in something, is not, not believing in that thing. It is lacking belief, in that thing.
You lack belief in the claims of belief in God, because God doesn't exist for you. Simples.

No, I actually lack belief in God. I actually believe people when they say they have belief in God. I believe you when you say it. That's because I am aware that "belief in God" exists, although I lack it.
Note that none of this actually addresses whether the object of one's belief is real or not.

As has been argued before: "belief in God" exists. Unless I am mistaken you have it. Therefore it exists, and I accept that "belief in God" exists. I accept that "belief in God" exists but I lack this "belief in God".

The italicised part is not flawed, for reasons given in earlier post.

But it is flawed, Jan, and the above has shown it to be flawed. But continue your stubborn ways if you feel you must.

No, it's because specific atheists always distort what I say, to suit their weak arguments and explanations.
So that I can always go back to a relatively recent thread to make sure I'm not mistaken.

I guess if you think you were right the first time then you will think you are right the second. The part you miss is the bit inbetween where your error is highlighted, the bit you choose to evade, avoid, ignore and waffle your way through, ignoring any inconsistencies, logical fallacies, knowing that eventually the issue will be lost in the pile of manure you liberally spray it with,

The issue JamesR raised, doesn't actually address the issue.

So JamesR raises issue with your position and you answer a completely different question/issue on the basis that his issue doesn't address what you see as the issue? Do you wonder any more why people think you are dishonestly evasive?

1- ''If Zarg doesn't exist, then there is nothing to believe, or lack belief in. ''
2=''As atheists are aware, God does not exist, which is why they don't believe in God.''

From where I'm sitting, these two statements essentially say the same thing.

But then your grasp of logic has always been woeful.

Furthermore 2 is false, as not all atheists are aware that God does not exist. But you can't get your head round that, can you. Instead you just repeat your mantras.[/quote]

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, I actually lack belief in God. I actually believe people when they say they have belief in God. I believe you when you say it. That's because I am aware that "belief in God" exists, although I lack it.

Why do you lack belief in God?

Note that none of this actually addresses whether the object of one's belief is real or not.

You tell me. you lack belief in it.
As for me. God just Is. God is the ultimate reality.

As has been argued before: "belief in God" exists. Unless I am mistaken you have it. Therefore it exists, and I accept that "belief in God" exists. I accept that "belief in God" exists but I lack this "belief in God".

Again, why do you lack belief in God?

But it is flawed, Jan, and the above has shown it to be flawed. But continue your stubborn ways if you feel you must.

Just saying ''I lack belief in God'' does not mean you actually do.
Let's see why you lack belief in God.

Furthermore 2 is false, as not all atheists are aware that God does not exist. But you can't get your head round that, can you. Instead you just repeat your mantras.

Are you going to argue that Deists believe God exists, but they are atheist?
If not, then which atheists believe God exists.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Why do you lack belief in God?
...
Again, why do you lack belief in God?
...
Let's see why you lack belief in God.

Because I don't have it (belief in God). I thus lack it. You have it, I don't.

You tell me. you lack belief in it.

Tell you what? I repeat what I said, which you'll note was not a question: none of this addresses the issue of whether the object of one's belief is real or not.

As for me. God just Is. God is the ultimate reality.

Yes, an a priori assumption. I get it. From which you derive your circular arguments. Or are you able to explain why you believe in God? Why you believe that God IS?
Surely it is more than just because someone told you? Or because God is defined as such?

Just saying ''I lack belief in God'' does not mean you actually do.

This is a non sequitur to the point that was made, Jan.
Another aspect of your evasive MO.

But you're right, me just saying something or telling you something doesn't mean it actually is. In the same way that someone telling you that God exists doesn't mean that it does. Someone defining God as being the essence of existence doesn't mean that it is. Someone telling you that the sensations you feel are God speaking to you does not mean that they are. Someone educating you in the scriptures does not mean that they are telling you the truth, or that scriptures are in any way a revelation from God, should God even exist.
You telling me you understand the atheist position, or even what atheist means, doesn't make it so. You telling me that you aren't dishonest, or aren't evasive, doesn't make it so.

Are you going to argue that Deists believe God exists, but they are atheist?

No, Jan. I am pointing out that your understanding of the term atheist would make such Deists atheist. That they aren't surely shows you that your understanding is deficient, or else I look forward to you referring to them as atheist from now on, in keeping with your understanding of atheism.

If not, then which atheists believe God exists.

According to your understanding of atheist, Deists would be classed as atheist: they do not believe in God, yet they believe that God exists.

If you do not agree then you have to concede that your understanding of the label is incompatible with how you wish to use it.

 

[Nasor]

When Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac, I considered it a demonic request. I considered Abraham to be evil when he agreed to the request. This started me on the path to being an atheist.

The story would have been much better if Abraham had flatly refused, and God congratulated him for having the guts to stand up for what he knew in his heart was right in the face of tremendous pressure.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Jan is hoping we've forgotten previous threads and posts where the use of the word "lack" was discussed with him.

Jan wants "lack of belief in God" to mean that atheists don't have something that they require. That they have an unfulfilled need to know God by believing in Him.

On the other hand, we keep telling him that "lack of belief in God" simply means that he has the belief and we don't.

Jan, consistent as always, also wants to imply that there is a God that can be the subject of a need or a "lack". People need God just like they need water, according to Jan's worldview. If you lack water, your life is in danger; you're missing out on something vital. Similarly, in Jan's world if you lack God then you're missing the spiritual salvation, the special personal connection and all the other good stuff that God provides to his Believers.

The starting point with Jan, as he freely admits, is always that God exists ("No, not that God exists. That God IS. Which is a completely different thing, though I can't clearly explain how it's different, James.") Therefore, all Jan's words must be read with that core assumption in mind. A lack of belief in God, according to Jan, can only mean a lack of belief in a God that actually exists. The alternative: that the belief is there and God isn't there, is unthinkable to Jan.

To make things easier, we should just mentally amend any mention of "God" by Jan to "God (who actually exists in reality)". Thus:

"Atheists don't believe in God" is to be read as "Atheists don't believe in God (who actually exists in reality)."
"God does not exist as far as you're aware" is to be read as "God (who actually exists in reality) does not exist as far as you're aware".
"Atheists are without God" is to be read as "Atheists are without God (who actually exists in reality)."

The elephant in the room, of course, is that you can't honestly append "who actually exists in reality" to statements about God, because nobody knows if God exists in reality or not.

Remember that when Jan asks "Why do you lack belief in God?", that is to be read as "Why do you lack belief in God, who actually exists in reality?"

An answer like "I just don't hold that belief" won't satisfy Jan, because he can't conceive of somebody rationally failing to believe in God when God "obviously" exists in reality. The only explanations must be that the person who doesn't believe is in denial or is consciously rejecting God (who actually exists in reality).

 

[sideshowbob]

That's exactly why it pertains to you.
There is no God.

But "there is no God" doesn't pertain to me. You haven't been able to explain what "God" is, so how can I know whether it exists or not?

What is it about that definition that makes no sense?

You said, "God just IS, was, and always will be. Anything we can perceive, or know, or experience is ultimately borne out of God. There is nothing but God, and God's energies."

What does that mean?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan is hoping we've forgotten previous threads and posts where the use of the word "lack" was discussed with him.

Am I?

Jan wants "lack of belief in God" to mean that atheists don't have something that they require. That they have an unfulfilled need to know God by believing in Him.

You see, this is why I post definitions.
Look at the definitions I posted. They all imply that you lack, without, or free of the thing you lack belief in.
You can change it how you like, but from the definitions, that's what it means.
I mentioned nothing about ''unfulfilled need to know God''. That's just you making stuff up you can answer.

Jan, consistent as always, also wants to imply that there is a God that can be the subject of a need or a "lack". People need God just like they need water, according to Jan's worldview.

More made up stuff?
Are you running out of material?

Therefore, all Jan's words must be read with that core assumption in mind.

As well as the atheist assumption that God can be known through evidence of there own choosing.

A lack of belief in God, according to Jan, can only mean a lack of belief in a God that actually exists. The alternative: that the belief is there and God isn't there, is unthinkable to Jan.

It's not unthinkable. You just can't.
You have nothing to believe in.

The elephant in the room, of course, is that you can't honestly append "who actually exists in reality" to statements about God, because nobody knows if God exists in reality or not.

What is reality?
Does it belong to you?

Remember that when Jan asks "Why do you lack belief in God?", that is to be read as "Why do you lack belief in God, who actually exists in reality?"

Are you conditioning your chums?
Perhaps reinforcing the barricades?

An answer like "I just don't hold that belief" won't satisfy Jan, because he can't conceive of somebody rationally failing to believe in God when God "obviously" exists in reality.

Apart from that, I would like to know why you lack belief in God, especially as God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.

The only explanations must be that the person who doesn't believe is in denial or is consciously rejecting God (who actually exists in reality).

Your label is loaded with implications, and the labels appear to relate to things I've noticed about you defensive strategy.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But "there is no God" doesn't pertain to me. You haven't been able to explain what "God" is, so how can I know whether it exists or not?

I did, but you rejected it. That's what a lot of atheists do. Then all they do is ask for something else.
Because there is no God for them, hence the term ''atheist''.
Why is that so hard to understand?

You said, "God just IS, was, and always will be. Anything we can perceive, or know, or experience is ultimately borne out of God. There is nothing but God, and God's energies."

What does that mean?

It means that God is the ultimate source.
What else could it mean?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

It means that God is the ultimate source.
What else could it mean?

What does that mean?

The source of the Mississippi is somewhere in Minnesota, I think. But is that the "ultimate" source? Where does it come from? Rain. Where does the rain come from? Clouds. Where do the clouds come from? Evaporation. Where does evaporation come from? The ocean. Where does the ocean come from? Rivers.

There is no "ultimate source", in that example, so why should there be one in yours?

 

[DaveC426913]

You see, this is why I post definitions.

Look at the definitions I posted.

Indeed.

Atheism ... is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

 

[river]

Jan Ardena said: ↑
Atheism ... is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

And...Dave your point ?

 

[DaveC426913]

And...Dave your point ?

Perhaps you should follow along a little closer.

The Coles Notes version: Jan likes definitions. He insists on particular ones that suit his argument. Then he posts definitions that contradict his own arguments.

 

[river]

Perhaps you should follow along a little closer.

Perhaps , but I haven't . We can't all be clued in , in all threads .

 

[DaveC426913]

Perhaps , but I haven't . We can't all be clued in , in all threads .

OK, but if you have a question about something, surely it behooves you to read up on the previous posts before asking others to bring you up to speed.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I try to, Jan, but your incessant twaddle just keeps me so amused that at some point I feel I have to contribute.
Not disputed.
No, I actually lack belief in God. I actually believe people when they say they have belief in God. I believe you when you say it. That's because I am aware that "belief in God" exists, although I lack it.
Note that none of this actually addresses whether the object of one's belief is real or not.

As has been argued before: "belief in God" exists. Unless I am mistaken you have it. Therefore it exists, and I accept that "belief in God" exists. I accept that "belief in God" exists but I lack this "belief in God".

^^^
I actually do not believe people when they say they believe in god(s). As children, they are forced/coerced into playing the game or be severely penalized. As they grow up they yet never feel it is safe to stop playing the game.
Many of them probably believe that most other theists do believe.
Many just cannot handle the fact that some will not play the game with them. Many must find fault with us because they cannot admit it is a pretend game. The ultimate peer pressure game.

<>

 

[river]

OK, but if you have a question about something, surely it behooves you to read up on the previous posts before asking others to bring you up to speed.

How far back Dave ?

 

[river]

^^^
I actually do not believe people when they say they believe in god(s). As children, they are forced/coerced into playing the game or be severely penalized. As they grow up they yet never feel it is safe to stop playing the game.
Many just cannot handle the fact that some will not play the game with them. Many must find fault with us because they cannot admit it is a pretend game. The ultimate peer pressure game.

<>

Yeah but thats about , abrahamic religions .

 

[DaveC426913]

How far back Dave ?

My simple point has long ago stopped discussing and is now just trolling. He has thrown up so much cruft as a way of pretending he's making any sense that he's actually contradicting himself. He's insisted time and time again that atheists believe God doesn't exist - by using a very particular specious definition of his own choosing - and then, in the quote I posted above, you can go back to where he himself posts not just one, but several other definitions, including at least one that contradicts his own assertion. How can any rational person say, hundreds of times "this is the definition of X that precludes all others" and then turn around and show us multiple - even contradictory - definitions?

He's now simply sticking his fingers in his ears reciting his and reciting his mantra, over and over. This is trolling. It's also preaching.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Yeah but thats about , abrahamic religions .

^^^
Why would it apply only to those?

<>