And you illustrate my characterization of the most common Western type of theists - materialists, who need a ghost for their machine.
My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?
- Thread starter Dinosaur
- Start date
- Status
Jan Ardena:
This is just the Argument from Design that you're putting forward, right?
Is there anything else that exists that doesn't come into being, apart from God?
Continue in the other thread.
Your base position in this thread, from which you have not budged, is that nobody can be atheist unless God exists.
Atheists do not believe that God exists. That is the base position.
Some atheists go a step further and make the positive claim that God does not exist. However, this is not true of all atheists.
Please do not assume that all atheists subscribe to a single, monolithic belief system that we all share. The only guaranteed point of agreement among atheists is that we do not believe that God/gods exist(s).
Do they? Can you give a few examples?
Like what?
This is just the Argument from Design that you're putting forward, right?
There's a discussion of the Kalam Cosmological argument in a separate thread.
Is there anything else that exists that doesn't come into being, apart from God?
Continue in the other thread.
You're just defining God as the single thing that doesn't depend on anything else. But there's no reason that such a thing must exist.
Dave is right. That's exactly what you are doing here. Ironic that you're accusing the atheists of denial.
Your base position in this thread, from which you have not budged, is that nobody can be atheist unless God exists.
If God doesn't exist, then it follows that God is a fantasy invented by human beings. There is no other sensible possibility.
Atheists do not believe that God exists. That is the base position.
Some atheists go a step further and make the positive claim that God does not exist. However, this is not true of all atheists.
Please do not assume that all atheists subscribe to a single, monolithic belief system that we all share. The only guaranteed point of agreement among atheists is that we do not believe that God/gods exist(s).
It's no secret that atheists do not believe in God. That's the definition - unlike your proposal which says atheists do not believe in God (who really exists in reality, trust Jan because he magically knows.)
Obviously. But at least we have a definition of God (exists, or not).
Your base positionin this thread, from which you have not budged, is that nobody can be atheist unless God exists.
I've never said that. The term atheist implies that the atheist person does not believe in God. That implies that God IS, but the atheist does not believe in God (for whatever reason).
''Atheist'' does not mean ''denial'', or ''rejection. It means a lack of belief in God/gods.
Denial, and rejection, however, could be the reason for one's atheism. I'm merely pointing out the individual (in this case Dave), as denying/rejecting, anything that leans towards God, in a positive way.
What good is that analysis?
From your perspective, God doesn't exist, and therefore is a fantasy.
Some atheists go a step further and make the positive
But what is true, is that God doesn't exist, for any atheist, in spite of what they claim.
If God existed, an atheist wouldn't be an atheist because there is no evidence of God, which is the standard reason most, if not all thinking atheists give. They would be an atheist because they didn't believe in God.
If God existed, and a person was unaware of God, then God would be non existent to that person, hence that person would be an atheist.
The last position is, 'what if God doesn't exit'?
God doesn't exist, as far as the atheist is aware, anyways.
The very fundamental basis, of your world view with regards to God.
This is not just a passing glitch in the atheist world, it is what it is to be atheist. All other reasoning's, are taken from that.
I don't need to point out that God exists, in reality, to come to the conclusion, that atheism is purely in relation to God. If everybody in the world was atheist, there would be no atheists. If God didn't exist, there would be no need to call yourself atheist.
Bodies.
Bodies.
No. It's just a fact.
Not within my comprehension.
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Which is exactly what James just said:
And it's atrocious logic.
'I do not believe ghosts exist' does not, in any way, imply that ghosts actually exist.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That is a huge admission on your part - counter to what you have been saying all along.
You are making progress.
False.
Corrected:
If the concept of God didn't exist, there would be no need to call onesself atheist.
The concept of crystal healing power exists, but I do not believe it holds any water. That does not - in any way - imply that crystals really heal.
Jan Ardena:
Previously, as you recall, I asked you to explain the difference between "God IS" and "God exists", if you think there is one. You did not reply. (Why did you not reply? It seems like bad faith to me.)
If you think they are different, then you need to explain to me what the difference is, and why the second does not follow from the first.
It seems to me that you are being deliberately evasive and seeking to obfuscate.
Explain to me how not believing in God implies that God exists.
After all, if I don't believe in fairies, it doesn't mean that fairies exist. Does it?
If I don't believe in Bigfoot, does it mean that Bigfoot IS?
I have already told you that I don't know whether God exists or not. I do not have a belief that God exists, but it might.
If there's one thing I'd like to see you take away from this discussion, Jan, it is this:
Knowledge does not follow from belief.
I've said it many times now, but you don't seem to understand.
It is not true that "from my perspective God doesn't exist". From my perspective, maybe God exists, maybe it doesn't. But I see no reason to believe that God exists, and therefore I do not have that belief.
Put the question a different way: "How confident are you that God exists?" Your answer: 100%.
And to me: "How confident are you that God doesn't exist?" My answer: well, it depends. Which God are we talking about? Chances are, the better you define your God, the more confident I will likely be regarding its non-existence. If you leave it a vague sort of deist "Creator of Everything, who doesn't do much after the initial Creation", then I don't have a lot to say about that kind of God. It's possible. But it's hard to say anything much about that kind of God.
You see what's happening here? I try to ground my belief, as far as possible, in knowledge, and where knowledge is absent, I keep an open mind. In contrast, you do things in reverse. You start with belief and assume that gives you knowledge. But it doesn't.
I've already discussed what this form of words really means to you. For you, it means (a) that God can simultaneously exist for one person yet not exist for another, or (b) that atheists are simply unaware of God, who you magically know exists. I reject both implications.
After all, the atheist can't magically just know that God exists like you claim you can.
I see what you're trying to do: you're trying to fudge the distinction between things existing in reality and things existing in a person's beliefs - in the mind. You'd like to claim that if God is in your mind then God exists for you. Which is fine as a form of words, but that is just a restatement of belief: if you say "God exists for me", you're really trying to avoid the question of whether God exists objectively, and instead settling for a comfortable belief declaration. In other words, you're really just saying "I believe God exists", and we're back to square one.
If, when you said "For atheists, God does not exist", you meant no more than "Atheists don't belief that God exists", that would be fine. But you want to wedge your assumption that God exists objectively (i.e. in reality, not just as a belief) into that statement, by implication. That is, when it comes from you we know by now to read it as "For atheists, God (who really, honestly exists because I, Jan, magically know it for sure) does not exist", and then we get "The fool in his heart..." etc. etc., because only a fool would deny the obvious.
Atheism is in relation not to the God you magically know exists. Atheism, if anything, is in opposition to your belief that God is real. It says, we don't have to hold that belief. There is nothing that compels it. There is no reason to hold the belief.
If the idea of God didn't exist, there would be no need.
You always start with big claims, but after a while you end up admitting you can't back them up. You always end up only with the excuse that you just know.
OK.
You say you never said God must exist for somebody to be atheist. Then, two sentences later, you say that being atheist implies that God exists.
Previously, as you recall, I asked you to explain the difference between "God IS" and "God exists", if you think there is one. You did not reply. (Why did you not reply? It seems like bad faith to me.)
If you think they are different, then you need to explain to me what the difference is, and why the second does not follow from the first.
It seems to me that you are being deliberately evasive and seeking to obfuscate.
Explain to me how not believing in God implies that God exists.
After all, if I don't believe in fairies, it doesn't mean that fairies exist. Does it?
If I don't believe in Bigfoot, does it mean that Bigfoot IS?
Good.
Or it could be that God doesn't exist. Or it could be that there's no good evidence for God. Or it could be that one simply doesn't believe that God exists, for whatever reason!
He can speak for himself.
You're still not getting it.Jan Ardena said:
I have already told you that I don't know whether God exists or not. I do not have a belief that God exists, but it might.
If there's one thing I'd like to see you take away from this discussion, Jan, it is this:
Knowledge does not follow from belief.
I've said it many times now, but you don't seem to understand.
It is not true that "from my perspective God doesn't exist". From my perspective, maybe God exists, maybe it doesn't. But I see no reason to believe that God exists, and therefore I do not have that belief.
Put the question a different way: "How confident are you that God exists?" Your answer: 100%.
And to me: "How confident are you that God doesn't exist?" My answer: well, it depends. Which God are we talking about? Chances are, the better you define your God, the more confident I will likely be regarding its non-existence. If you leave it a vague sort of deist "Creator of Everything, who doesn't do much after the initial Creation", then I don't have a lot to say about that kind of God. It's possible. But it's hard to say anything much about that kind of God.
You see what's happening here? I try to ground my belief, as far as possible, in knowledge, and where knowledge is absent, I keep an open mind. In contrast, you do things in reverse. You start with belief and assume that gives you knowledge. But it doesn't.
And again we get your run-around weasel words.
I've already discussed what this form of words really means to you. For you, it means (a) that God can simultaneously exist for one person yet not exist for another, or (b) that atheists are simply unaware of God, who you magically know exists. I reject both implications.
No, that doesn't follow. God might exist, but there might still be no evidence of God. Maybe God exists but does nothing in the world, for instance. Or maybe there would be evidence, but the atheist could be unaware of it. Either way, the atheist would still be justified in citing a lack of evidence as a reason why he didn't believe in God.
After all, the atheist can't magically just know that God exists like you claim you can.
There's the same form of words as before: "non existent to that person". As if something can exist for one person and simultaneously not exist for another.
I see what you're trying to do: you're trying to fudge the distinction between things existing in reality and things existing in a person's beliefs - in the mind. You'd like to claim that if God is in your mind then God exists for you. Which is fine as a form of words, but that is just a restatement of belief: if you say "God exists for me", you're really trying to avoid the question of whether God exists objectively, and instead settling for a comfortable belief declaration. In other words, you're really just saying "I believe God exists", and we're back to square one.
If, when you said "For atheists, God does not exist", you meant no more than "Atheists don't belief that God exists", that would be fine. But you want to wedge your assumption that God exists objectively (i.e. in reality, not just as a belief) into that statement, by implication. That is, when it comes from you we know by now to read it as "For atheists, God (who really, honestly exists because I, Jan, magically know it for sure) does not exist", and then we get "The fool in his heart..." etc. etc., because only a fool would deny the obvious.
That should be the first position. Belief should follow knowledge, because knowledge does not follow from belief.
You don't point it out. Instead, you try to weasel it in, to surreptitiously define it into your usage of the word "atheist". You want to sneak it under the rug.
Atheism is in relation not to the God you magically know exists. Atheism, if anything, is in opposition to your belief that God is real. It says, we don't have to hold that belief. There is nothing that compels it. There is no reason to hold the belief.
Indeed.
If theists didn't exist, there would be no need.
If the idea of God didn't exist, there would be no need.
Bodies are made of atoms that exist before the body and remain after the body is gone. A body is just an arrangement of matter.
I take it you're not going to argue for this one, either. You admit there's no proof of God. Now, or eventually, you'll admit that there's no proof that objects are contingent.
You always start with big claims, but after a while you end up admitting you can't back them up. You always end up only with the excuse that you just know.
If everybody in the world was atheist, there certainly would be atheists.
If the idea of gods did not exist, everyone would be atheist but there would be no need to say, write or think about the word atheist. Or the word theist.
<>
If the idea of gods did not exist, everyone would be atheist but there would be no need to say, write or think about the word atheist. Or the word theist.
<>
Did you read what I wrote at all? Do you believe Thor exists? If not, by your reasoning you're an atheist.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
30,000,000 plus gods known to man and Christian believe in one, I mean two, I mean three of them. They're one, I mean two, I mean three times less atheist than I am.
I've never said that ''nobody can be an atheist unless God exists''.
But, the term ''atheist'' does imply that God IS, but the atheist does not believe in God.
I believe I have explained. When the atheist asks for evidence of God's existence, they ask from there perception of existence. An object exists, and we can verify that it exists via our senses. God does not exist in the way objects exist, so an atheist will not be able to see, hear, or touch God.
Explain to me how not believing in your tutor implies that the tutor does not exist.
Of course you're going to say that we can see, hear, and touch the tutor, but where is God.
We can't see, touch, or hear it. Then we're right back to square one where we start debating the existence of God, where you expect God to exist in the way objects exist. And round and round we go...
It may well do, if others believe they exist.
Generally though, we don't have people, or groups, believing in fairies to the point we it sparks debates, discussion, and lectures on it.
My point is that God doesn't exist, as far as atheists are aware. It is true that God doesn't exist, as far as atheists are aware.
If there is no good evidence for God's existence, then it stands to reason that God doesn't exist for the person who demand evidence. So this is simply follows from the default position of ''God does not exist''.
Your third option is what I've been saying all along. If a person believes that God does not exist, then God does not exist as far they are aware. Again it follow from the default position.
So really, the atheist is the default position. Some accept that God does not exist for anybody (because it doesn't exist for them). Some may think, I don't know if God exists (he doesn't exist as far as I can tell), let me see if there is any evidence for God. Either the default position is ''God does not exist'' as far as they are aware.
The reason why you don't know if God exists, or not, is because God doesn't exist, as far you're aware. It always stems from that.
We're talking about ''atheism'' and ''theism'', not whether or not God exists.
For you, God doesn't exist, for whatever reason.
For me, God IS. Those are our positions.
You are defending the idea that there is no evidence for God, because that is your position. Plus it is a knowledge claim.
For me, God Is, and I accept that God Is. That is my position.
The problem for you is, you cannot accept my position. It is not enough that God does not exist as far as you're aware, but now God cannot exist, unless there is suitable evidence, that we can all see.
If you really meant that wholeheartedly, you wouldn't be asking for evidence of God, because that assumes you can know God, through suitable evidence. But you say you don't know if God exists.
Your problem is that you want your cake, and eat it. It is alright for you to throw knowledge claims, based on what you believe, around, as and when you like. But the moment I follow suit, you want to clamp down.
What does ''maybe'' look like?
God Is, or God doesn't exist.
Either you accept God, or you don't.
There are no grey areas.
I don't analyse it like that.
Anything you say about God, is from the perspective of ''there is no God'' to draw anything from, so I'll speculate. So you speculate as though God should exist like any other object. If that particular object cannot be verified as existing (like other objects), then it is likely that the object does not exit, and those who believe in the ''existence'' of this object, do so for other reasons (comfort, fear, indoctrination...), or they are just plain irrational.
Last edited:
...
''God'', is the deist God, but the deists only accept that aspect.
All concepts and perspectives, occur because God is the original creator of all objects that have the capacity to have concepts, and perspectives.
I'm just doing what you do. Speak from my own perspective. Obviously, anything that leans toward an assumption of God, you will see as a knowledge claim, then proceed to ask for evidence.
You would like to think that you are grounded, rational, and reasonable, in your approach. But you're not.
You believe that God should exists, like other objects.
You believe that evidence is the way to validate God.
You believe theists believe in some magical concoction.
You make knowledge claims (or assumptions if you prefer) virtually all the time. So don't even go there.
Are you seriously telling me that something like sight can exist for one person, but not for another, simultaneously?
I don't need you to tell me what my words mean.
I've said what I said, and that's what I mean.
You seem to be obsessed with God's existence. That's not what we're discussing.
Our positions are God Is, and There is no God as far as I'm aware. I'm not interested in discussing the existence of God, because there is simply no need to in this thread.
You said it yourself, that you do not know whether or not God exists. Fine.
Don't assume that everyone is like you. I certainly don't assume that everyone is like me.
If God does not exist, then you cannot know anything about God. You can only know that God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. Any other statement or speculation you make, is an assumption.
No. I'm stating a fact. For you God does not exist as far as you're aware. And that is regardless of what you think. It's not my problem that you don't like the implications from that. Plus it doesn't matter, because God doesn't exit as far as you're aware. And that could well be the reason you are atheist.
You can read into it how you like, my words are there as a witness to any exaggerations.
I didn't write that bible verse, so take it up with Moses, or whoever.
That's how you see. But it's not how I see it.
I don't need to.
It's there for anybody to see.
I mentioned nothing about magic. Again, a perspective from a person for whom God does not exist, as far as he is aware.
But they do exist, and here we are.
And the body comes into existence, and then goes out of existence.
No, it's not an argument from Intelligent Design, I'm putting forward.
It is a fact that for a body to come into being, it is contingent on other things.
An example.
jan.[/QUOTE]
''God'', is the deist God, but the deists only accept that aspect.
All concepts and perspectives, occur because God is the original creator of all objects that have the capacity to have concepts, and perspectives.
You see what's happening here? I try to ground my belief, as far as possible, in knowledge, and where knowledge is absent, I keep an open
I'm just doing what you do. Speak from my own perspective. Obviously, anything that leans toward an assumption of God, you will see as a knowledge claim, then proceed to ask for evidence.
You would like to think that you are grounded, rational, and reasonable, in your approach. But you're not.
You believe that God should exists, like other objects.
You believe that evidence is the way to validate God.
You believe theists believe in some magical concoction.
You make knowledge claims (or assumptions if you prefer) virtually all the time. So don't even go there.
Are you seriously telling me that something like sight can exist for one person, but not for another, simultaneously?
I don't need you to tell me what my words mean.
I've said what I said, and that's what I mean.
You seem to be obsessed with God's existence. That's not what we're discussing.
Our positions are God Is, and There is no God as far as I'm aware. I'm not interested in discussing the existence of God, because there is simply no need to in this thread.
You said it yourself, that you do not know whether or not God exists. Fine.
Don't assume that everyone is like you. I certainly don't assume that everyone is like me.
If God does not exist, then you cannot know anything about God. You can only know that God doesn't exist as far as you're aware. Any other statement or speculation you make, is an assumption.
No. I'm stating a fact. For you God does not exist as far as you're aware. And that is regardless of what you think. It's not my problem that you don't like the implications from that. Plus it doesn't matter, because God doesn't exit as far as you're aware. And that could well be the reason you are atheist.
You can read into it how you like, my words are there as a witness to any exaggerations.
I didn't write that bible verse, so take it up with Moses, or whoever.
That's how you see. But it's not how I see it.
I don't need to.
It's there for anybody to see.
I mentioned nothing about magic. Again, a perspective from a person for whom God does not exist, as far as he is aware.
But they do exist, and here we are.
And the body comes into existence, and then goes out of existence.
No, it's not an argument from Intelligent Design, I'm putting forward.
It is a fact that for a body to come into being, it is contingent on other things.
An example.
jan.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
" The term atheist implies that the atheist person does not believe in God. That implies that God IS, but the atheist does not believe in God (for whatever reason)."
Atheist: A person who does not believe any god or gods exist.
Atheist: A person who does not believe any god or gods exist.
Thanks.
It's also really convenient that it means the same as the original meaning of 'atheist' (atheos), which mean ''without God''.
Glad you liked it.
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No. It does not.
And even if you chose to believe that it did imply it, that does not mean God exists; it simply means the interpretation of the definition is wrong.
I can't believe the forum is indulging this troll-like behavior. Whenever Jan is argued into a corner he just recites his mantra over-and-over. That's trolling.
Last edited:
Dave,
If your position is that you don't believe in God, then it implies that God is something that you don't believe in. If I don't believe in my tutor, it implies that my tutor is a person/thing, that I don't happen to believe in. You're an atheist because of God. But it is only an implication. Obviously you choose to not see it as such.
jan.
If your position is that you don't believe in God, then it implies that God is something that you don't believe in. If I don't believe in my tutor, it implies that my tutor is a person/thing, that I don't happen to believe in. You're an atheist because of God. But it is only an implication. Obviously you choose to not see it as such.
jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No it does not.
I don't believe in pink unicorns and fairy godmothers either - though they exist as a concept. That does not imply - in any way - that unicorns and fairy godmothers are real.
Stop.
It doesn't matter how many times the term is explained, Jan won't listen.
The fallacy in his thinking is that he assumes that one can only "not believe in" something if that something exists (or IS) - thus to say one does not believe in something is to imply that the something exists (or IS).
However, as everyone else other than Jan seems to understand, there is no such implication: one can not believe in any number of things that one even might know to not exist.
Until Jan grasps this he will continue to be mistaken.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Because there's no evidence for any god or gods.
- Status