My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[river]

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.

Well true .

But in the understanding of the Universe I have grown to understand things differently .

Life has intelligence to a degree based on their form .

I no longer look at this Universe as being just a material thing , mechanical causes , a gear meshed with another gear . Molecules , atoms , sub-atomics as being nothing more than this .

Atheism is old , Out dated .

god or rather the sourse , is really where the discussion should be .

 

[DaveC426913]

Atheism is old , Out dated .
god or rather the sourse , is really where the discussion should be .

The belief in any deeper nature of the universe is a personal, subjective thing. We each have our beliefs that can't be defended.
Don't make the same mistake Jan is making, and presume to speak a larger truth for more than just yourself.

 

[iceaura]

I didn't say God doesn't exist, I said God doesn't exist in the way we exist.

That's not true.
You were attempting to restrict "existence" to objects, so you could strawman the matter - but nobody went along.

"Which is consistent - nothing that "is", without existing, can create (that would imply a limitation)."
Read above.

Done, months (years) ago. Once again you avoid an issue by pretending to misunderstand - the point was that nothing that "is", without existing, can create. (If your God doesn't exist as we exist, your God cannot create as we create, for example)

You never post honestly. Why is that?

 

[iceaura]

I no longer look at this Universe as being just a material thing , mechanical causes , a gear meshed with another gear . Molecules , atoms , sub-atomics as being nothing more than this .

So you reject the machine model, but without rejecting the machine description.
You see the universe as mechanical, but are aware the universe cannot be "just" this material gearbox arrangement - so you need a ghost in your machine.

This is the most common foundation of modern theistic belief - a mechanical universe is inadequate, so a ghost is required.
The projection of that mechanical description unto all atheistic views is then automatic (it's "reality", after all). And since some atheists do have views fitting that projection (Dennett refers to a subset of them as "greedy reductionists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greedy_reductionism) it gets reinforced. The discussion becomes whether or not the machine has a ghost.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is the most common foundation of modern theistic belief - a mechanical universe is inadequate, so a ghost is required.

I don't know any theist that think the idea of a mechanical universe is inadequate.
The idea of any mechanical machine, pulling itself up by it's own bootstraps, is simply not supported by anything we know.

The discussion becomes whether or not the machine has a ghost.

Or was constructed, by sheer chance.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

I don't know any theist that think the idea of a mechanical universe is inadequate

I do. You, for example.

The idea of any mechanical machine, pulling itself up by it's own bootstraps, is simply not supported by anything we know.

Exactly. Inadequate.

Or was constructed, by sheer chance.

Constructed so by you, and not by chance - by insistent error.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's not true.
You were attempting to restrict "existence" to objects, so you could strawman the matter - but nobody went along.

Objects come into, and out of being.
Objects are contingent on other things in order for them to exist. God, by definition does not come into and out of being. God's existence is dependant on anything in order to e

Done, months (years) ago. Once again you avoid an issue by pretending to misunderstand - the point was that nothing that "is", without existing, can create. (If your God doesn't exist as we exist, your God cannot create as we create, for example)

You never post honestly. Why is that?

Why are you accusing me of dishonesty?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I do. You, for example.

If the universe is, what it is supposed to be, how is it inadequate?

Exactly. Inadequate

Because an aardvark cannot build a skyscraper hotel, doesn't make it inadequate.
By your logic everything is inadequate.

Constructed so by you, and not by chance - by insistent error.

???

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

Why are you accusing me of dishonesty?

Why are you posting dishonestly? I asked first.
Why did you post this already dismissed strawman, for example:

Objects come into, and out of being.

(Strawmanning about existence, already called out as dishonest)

If the universe is, what it is supposed to be, how is it inadequate?

It isn't. Your materialist misconception of it is - that's why you need the ghost.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why are you posting dishonestly? I asked first.
Why did you post this already dismissed strawman, for example:

(Strawmanning about existence, already called out as dishonest)

It isn't. Your materialist misconception of it is - that's why you need the ghost.

The reality is I'm a theist, and you are an atheist.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just realized Jan has been agreeing with us all along.

As has been observed countless times, Jan applies definitions to define God into existence. eg.: In order for the to be atheism, there must be some thing for atheists to be without, etc.

Jan proves God by the application of human terminology.

Which is what we have been saying all along: that God was invented by man.

When is the last time you saw a post with a God argument based on empirical observational evidence?

Nope, all these arguments strewn about SciFo exist entirely internal to human thinking.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheism is old , Out dated .

god or rather the sourse , is really where the discussion should be .

Good points.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

As has been observed countless times, Jan applies definitions to define God into existence. eg.: In order for the to be atheism, there must be some thing for atheists to be without, etc.

Here is atheism at it's best. Looking for anything that can be used as a denial.
Thanks for the demonstration.

Jan proves God by the application of human terminology.

That's weird, because I've already stated in this thread (and others) that I cannot prove God. Then I've gone on to say, just because I, or anyone cannot prove God, doesn't mean the atheist default view of God does not exist, correct.

Which is what we have been saying all along: that God was invented by man.

Well. If God was invented by man as you (atheists) have been saying all along. Then it is obvious that you (atheists) believe/know that God does not exist. Which is what you've denying all along.

Thanks for opening your big mouth, and sharing the secret atheist belief system. But you needn't have bothered, it's written in the label, and any explanation one can concoct from the label. Once again, thanks.

Nope, all these arguments strewn about SciFo exist entirely internal to human thinking.

Which arguments?

jan.

 

[sideshowbob]

If God was invented by man as you (atheists) have been saying all along. Then it is obvious that you (atheists) believe/know that God does not exist.

Non sequitur.

Everybody believes that some gods are made up - Christians believe that Zeus was made up, Buddhists believe that Thor was made up, etc. All atheists are saying is that there are no known gods that haven't been made up.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here is atheism at it's best. Looking for anything that can be used as a denial.
Thanks for the demonstration.

Indeed. Just like the last thousand or so posts of a theist, using any kind of tortured logic to try to make a point.

Which is kind of what we've been saying all along. You are entitled to your belief about God, but it is only your belief.

You try to force your belief upon others by making assertions you can't back up. We, on the other hand, acknowledge that, when it comes to such matters, objective truth does not follow from belief.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Never religious, never interested in it. Never had an imaginary friend that controlled me.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Non sequitur.

Everybody believes that some gods are made up - Christians believe that Zeus was made up, Buddhists believe that Thor was made up, etc. All atheists are saying is that there are no known gods that haven't been made up.

IOW, God doesn't exist.
So why deny that is what you (atheists) believe?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Which is kind of what we've been saying all along. You are entitled to your belief about God, but it is only your belief.

Where have I stated it is more than my belief?

You try to force your belief upon others by making assertions you can't back up.

What belief's? That God does not exist, as far as atheists are aware?
That's not a belief, and I certainly have no need to force that obvious default position on others. As for backing it up. No need, you've already done that.

We, on the other hand, acknowledge that, when it comes to such matters, objective truth does not follow from belief.

What does that even mean?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Never religious, never interested in it. Never had an imaginary friend that controlled me.

What are you attempting to express. Religious? Imaginary friend?...

jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What are you attempting to express. Religious? Imaginary friend?...

jan.

Seriously? The "gods" people have are just imaginary friends.