My path to atheism: Yours? Rebuttals?

[sideshowbob]

Are you an atheist or not?

jan.

I don't label myself as an atheist. I don't label myself as a pessimist. I don't label myself as tall.

All of those attributes are relative.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You assume existence. I am concerned that you have no good grounds for making that assumption.

Thanks, but it isn't necessary.

You "believe in God", but you're not concerned about whether God actually exists. And your belief in God doesn't in any way follow from God being real. That's really quite irrational, Jan. But I understand that it's not about rationality for you.

I don't think about God, the way you think about God James. So it's pointless going down that road.
I see theism, and atheism, as natural. They are fundamental. I am theist, and you are atheist.
To me God just IS.
You are without God.

When I was a theist I was pretty much like you. I just assumed that God existed, took it for granted and was convinced that I knew that God was real. But at some point my education and intellect got in the way of blind faith.

In what way were you like me?
You clearly didn't give it any real thought. You most probably wanted something, or things. They didn't materialize, so you said sod this. I'm nothing like you were, or are. You are an atheist, I am a theist. These are fundamentals.

The absence of a convincing argument or evidence for God's existence is rather a barrier to my signing up (again) as a theist, I admit.

You don't want to believe in God. Why pretend otherwise?
We all know that a convincing argument is not going to arrive, because you'll reject everything (just like it says on the label).

You're stuck in that binary thinking mode again: either one asserts that God exists, or one asserts that God does not exist.

So the fact that God doesn't actually exist, for you, is not really a consideration?
It's the only truth you can offer. Everything else is a defence for your ever so weak position.

You'll have me believe that you live your live with faith in this God of yours, trust in Him, try to follow His teachings, venerate His sacred scriptures and on on, yet you have no belief regarding whether this God exists in reality or not.

You have no idea how I live my life, or how I relate to God, because you're an atheist. The best you can do is guess, or try to imagine (not sure why you'd do that). But be prepared to be told that you're mistaken, because you most certainly will be.

Sorry, Jan, but I'm not buying it. If you believe in God, you also believe that your God is real. You can't have your "belief in" without the basic "belief that".

I've explained to you how and why I believe in God, many times. But you don't get it. You require me to put it in terms that suit your particular argument. Last time; Belief in God is natural, as is non belief in God.

If that's what it means, then it's a useless definition. I suggest you try to find a better one.

It fits. What more do you want?

You're still trying to import the idea that God exists as an a priori assumption. You need to stop that if you want an honest discussion.

I don't need to imply it. The implication is already there. I merely bring it out of obscurity, or hiding.
If you lack belief in God, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means you actually lack belief in God. The implication is already there. You may want to bring it down to ''where's the evidence of God''. But it does not change the fact that you lack belief in God.

Also, when you ask for evidence of God, you imply that the evidence should be clear for atheists.
So for you, either God is what you think God should be, or God does not exist as far as you're aware, and you ask for suitable evidence, knowing that such evidence will never be forthcoming. Because you don't know what God is. Either way, you're definitely atheist as per description.

The executive summary is this: maybe God exists; maybe it doesn't.

But does it currently exist, as far as you are currently aware?
Simple question JamesR, and you need a straightforward answer, if we are to move on.

I don't believe that God exists;

Obviously, because God doesn't currently exist as far as you're aware.

I believe there are no good grounds for "believing in" God in the way you "believe in" God.

There's nothing like stating the obvious James.
You are atheist, and I am theist. Two fundamentally different positions. They are why we see the world, the way we see it.

In the absence of conclusive evidence, I make an estimate of likelihood. I weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of arguments put by both sides, and reach a tentative conclusion or "belief", always keeping open the possibility that my own knowledge might change or that new evidence will come to light that makes it justifiable to revise my opinion.

You see it like that because you are an atheist.
Don't you get it?

It's implicit in every statement you make about your belief. You say you aren't concerned about the question of existence. That can only be because you believe so strongly that the possibility of non-existence doesn't occur to you. In other words, you think you already know that God exists. You think that believing really hard is the same as knowing. But it really isn't.

I've already explained this to you. So see it how you will.

You speak as if it's an individual choice as to what amounts to good evidence or flawed evidence of a thing.

You're the one who thinks evidence is required to believe in God.
I accept God, and understand that evidence (however that pertains to actually accepting God), can at best strengthen ones belief, or disbelief (if you're an atheist). I think it is very silly to sit around waiting for ''evidence'' or ''good explanations'', to access God. Life is short, there's no point in kidding yourself.

The essence of "evidence" is that it is objective. There's no "evidence for you" vs "evidence for me".

If that was the case, you'd accept that the evidence that is put forward for God, is evidence. But you reject, and deny it. You look for any little, snippet of something that could contradict it. Atheist are really obvious. Yet somehow they get away with it. I think theists give too much respect to atheists excuses, and goalpost shifting explanations.

It's your mind doing the cherry picking.

Don't need to cherry-pick. Even the quote from an atheist site implies God exists, but they choose not to accept it.
You can't get away from it.

The reality is that you very much need to. You scream out your need in your every tortured attempt to define "atheism" to suit yourself

You cannot show where I am implying God exists, because it is embedded in every definition I've posted.
I think that you know I'm right James, which is why you keep trying to convince yourself of this.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have no choice but to either admit that you've contradicted yourself in a massive way, or show yourself as a troll who is simply trying to get your jollies.

This is what is important to you. If all the atheists keep repeating 'you've been told', 'you're being dishonest, 'thousands of times', etc..., then at some point I'll get banned, or be told to stop doing whatever you keep repeating, and you don't have to face up to the reality of your position.

Again, very obvious.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't label myself as an atheist. I don't label myself as a pessimist. I don't label myself as tall.

All of those attributes are relative.

Do you believe in God"

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You can take it as read that I will post from an "atheist perspective".

I just feel the need to point out that our perspectives are fundamentally different (opposing).

It might be more helpful if you attempt to provide a contrasting "theist perspective" at some point in the discussion, rather than simply calling out what you see as a problem.

I have done, but you reject it.
Rejection is your thing.

And with that, you simply reinforce that correctness of the label I applied to you.

I'm arrogant because I believe you haven't thought your position through?
I thought you agreed with the definition.

I've been pointing out your errors all through the thread. And not just me. See what I mean?

You points are atheist perspectives, which only avoids answering the questions I put to you.
It is a fact that God does not currently exist, as far as you are aware. Is it not?

To tell the truth, I'm no longer sure there's really any more depth to your belief than this dogmatic mantra. Maybe you do it more for your own benefit than ours. Must ... keep ... believing ... in ... God. Must ... resist ... critical ... thought.

And there you go again, with the pointless, and ineffective insults.

From what you've written, I'm fairly confident that your belief in God is not very different from that of any other believer, and not very different to what my belief was like back when I believed in God.

Theism is the belief in God. Why the need to personalise it? My belief, his belief, her belief...
Can you explain to me what it is to believe in God?
Or do you draw upon a time when you thought you believed in God, only to realise that you don't (because you're atheist).
You can't even talk about God, or Jesus, let alone believed in them. You're not kidding me James.

"Belief in God is natural to human beings" is a claim that applies to human beings in general. I would prefer a statement more along the lines that "The predisposition to believe in God is natural to human beings", and we could spend quite some time unpacking that statement.

That's because you start from being an atheist. That is what you are, and it shapes your view of the world. You probably think you're being objective, that you have enough information, and ability, to view it from the opposite perspective. But you don't. It's like being blind. No matter how much information you amass, your perception will never be the same as a sighted person. That's not necessarily better or worse. It would depend on the individual. But it is a common-sense fact, which is why most people don't like the idea of losing their sight, as they feel they would be without something that they is essential.

The 'predisposition' to believe in God is something an atheist would insert, for there own credibility. The fact is people believe in God, and have always believed in God. It is natural to human beings, not a predisposition.
Like I said there are two perspectives, and both are correct from their own.

We can explain your belief that way if you like, but it amounts to the same thing when we get down to the individual level.

It doesn't matter how I explain my belief, it will never make sense to you, unless you give up you preconceptions. Which I doubt will happen any time soon.

It's a pity there's no objective evidence for this "reality" of yours. Why is that, do you think?

Objective evidence is not the thing that makes you a theist. Sure theists will try and argue for God, using objective evidence, but that's not what is needed to be theist. Objective evidence gives insight into the awesomeness of God. Or if you're an atheist, the awesomeness of nature (as there is nothing else as far as they are aware).

It would be necessary for God to exist and for me to know that in order for it to be possible for me to consciously reject God.

You're the one who thinks there needs to be suitable evidence for God to be. Where did you get that idea from?
Could it be that you reject God, but don't know how or when it became real, that if God IS, then there should be suitable evidence (by suitable, evidence that conforms to whatever standard I deem fit)?

There's no mistake. In fact, you just flat-out made the claim, above.

I believe in God, and I know that you don't.
I know that this is fundamental to us.
I accept that your world view is that of an atheist, and as such you don't believe in God, because God does not exist, to you.

The reality is that you very much need to. You scream out your need in your every tortured attempt to define "atheism" to suit yourself.

Yet it is implicit within any definition of atheism you care to bring forth. Why?
Because atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Why is there a lack of belief in God?
Because the atheist cannot access God, because God does not exist to them. There, now you're not lying.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I don't need to imply it. The implication is already there. I merely bring it out of obscurity, or hiding.
If you lack belief in God, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means you actually lack belief in God. The implication is already there. You may want to bring it down to ''where's the evidence of God''. But it does not change the fact that you lack belief in God.

And how is "lack belief in God" any implication that God actually exists?
"Belief in God" exists - after all you have it.
Thus one can lack "belief in God".
I don't have "belief in God".
I therefore lack "belief in God".

Where in any of this, therefore, is there the implication that God actually exists?

Don't need to cherry-pick. Even the quote from an atheist site implies God exists, but they choose not to accept it.

No it doesn't imply that, for the reason above.

You can't get away from it.

There's nothing but your continued misunderstanding of the logic of the definition in question.
And we honestly wish we could get away from it, but here you are, persisting with it.

You cannot show where I am implying God exists, because it is embedded in every definition I've posted.

No, it is simply your misinterpretation of the definitions that brings in the assumption of God's existence.
As explained above, the definition logically does not make the assumption that God exists.
It makes the assumption that "belief in God" exists - and that atheists lack this.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is what is important to you.
Again, very obvious.

It doesn't even matter if you accept or reject any of your opponents' have a refutations of your assertions; you have contradicted your own assertions.

You were given plenty of rope, and you have hung yourself, with no help from any "atheists' perspective". Well done.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because atheism is simply a lack of belief in God.

Nope.

Read the wise words of Jan Ardena:

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

"The reality is, and has always been, there is God, and there are folk who choose not to accept God."

How is this me saying God actually exists?
That is the reality regarding theism and atheism.
I would be surprised if an honest atheist didn't acknowledge that obvious fact.

You remember writing that, don't you Jan? It was only just above the post I'm replying to, after all.

You misunderstood it James. You thought I was talking about God, not the situation between theist and atheist.

So your position is that the reality is that there is God, but that doesn't mean that God exists?

I'm a theist James. What do you think?
But as usual, you misunderstood my point.
I don't need to imply God exists, or God is real, or from my perspective, God just IS, to explain that God does not exist for any atheist (lest they would not be atheist). All these other designations, fit right into that.

Do you have a theist perspective that you'd like to offer your readers?

Yes. As a theist, my position is that I believe in God. I don't need to shift goalposts, or distort the opposing view to make myself more credible. It is what it is.

The fact that I'm not aware of any good evidence for God's existence doesn't mean that God does not exist. Knowledge doesn't follow from belief, like I said.

But the truth is God does not exist as far as you're aware. Let's deal with the truth James.

Sure. You might as well consult an expert, rather than going solely on a generalist dictionary definition.

I think experts are over-rated in a lot of ways. In this case of course, an atheist is not more of an expert on the definition of atheism, than a theist, unless of course the theist complies with the atheist, which in a sense sums up the thinking of some atheists who are active and vocal.

I didn't say you assume God exists, or assert that God exists. It doesn't matter what you assume or assert.
You know, Jan, it kind of does matter when you're in a discussion forum having a discussion about something.

It depends if it is relevant. This isn't, and I've explained why repeatedly.

Use your dictionary if you like, but be aware that dictionaries only record usages of words. As for the differences between today and the past, realise that usages and meanings of many words change over time.

Which is why I stick to essentials. The consistent fact is, God does not currently exist for atheists. Regardless of what they think.

We're back to your "just knowing" again. I guess you're plugging the "natural" line now because I previously described your claimed innate access to special knowledge as "magical".

I've always maintained that it is natural. Because it is.
If you can't accept that, that is you business.

What you're doing here, of course, is that you're now trying to define "natural" to include the supernatural, and in particular God. So, anything associated with God becomes "natural" under this redefinition.

*sigh*

No I'm not James.

Nice try, Jan, but "just knowing" stuff, without any external source of the knowledge, is a magical claim, not a natural one.

Who says there is no external source? I thought you knew what theism means?

I have already talked about senses a little. You don't remember learning how to use your senses, but take it from me that you did learn.

Just like one can comprehend God. You don't remember how, but take it from me theists do.
Atheists also, obviously in the opposite.

I understand that your particular brand of theism is a kind of pan-theism, wherein everything is "part of God". Rocks, trees, dogs, you and me - we're all part of God. In the widest sense, as I have pointed out before, you merely substitute the word "God" for "universe".

That's how you see it James.

For my purposes, it doesn't matter much if your God is a separate entity or a God who manages by some magic simultaneously to be everything and to maintain a separate identity.

Or if it's name is Humpty Dumpty?
Why should it?

I believe. There would be many objective signs that your wife loves you. I really don't want to be distracted by following you down that particular rabbit hole again.

People can act James. Psychopaths are supposed to be very good at pretending to be loving and caring.
Signs don't always follow James.

If you don't know, I don't think I can help you. Obviously you didn't learn certain niceties of polite social discourse. It's probably too late to hope to change you now. I imagine you're set in your ways.[/

Why didn't you just answer the question? I'm sure it wouldn't have taken any longer than it did to write this non answer response.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Nope.

Read the wise words of Jan Ardena:

Oh my gosh!
Dave, that was part of a link from the American Atheist site.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

God does not exist for the atheist.

The (agnostic) atheist, cannot assert that God does not exist, because such an atheist, doesn't know.

They can often assert that particular gods - or even entire categories of gods - do not exist as their believers claim they do, that specific assertions of the existence of particular kinds of gods are false claims.

That such gods exist (in the manner claimed) for nobody.

They can also remark that some claims and assertions regarding atheists in general or atheism in general are false - often via the easy way of presenting an immediate counterexample.

You misunderstood it James. You thought I was talking about God, not the situation between theist and atheist.

You were presuming God as an imposed frame for assertion, a rhetorical framing technique common in hypnosis and storytelling as well as dishonest argumentation.

In this case of course, an atheist is not more of an expert on the definition of atheism, than a theist,

The question here is one of honesty, not expertise.
But if we pretend that expertise is involved, it's clear you are less of an expert in some people's beliefs than they are.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And how is "lack belief in God" any implication that God actually exists?
"Belief in God" exists - after all you have it.
Thus one can lack "belief in God".
I don't have "belief in God".
I therefore lack "belief in God".

Where in any of this, therefore, is there the implication that God actually exists?

The fact that you lack belief in God.
If you lacked belief in the notion of God, that wouldn't make you atheist.

There's nothing but your continued misunderstanding of the logic of the definition in question.
And we honestly wish we could get away from it, but here you are, persisting with it.

Does God exist as you read this for the first time?
Of course you're going to say ''I don't know'', which is fine, because it could mean that God may well exist and you will at some point believe.

But it could also, and does mean, that at present there is nothing that you can call God.
There is no God, or existence of God, that you can decide.
There is, as you say, no evidence of anything that could be called God.
So to summarize, there is no God to know, and there is nothing in the form of evidence that even leads you in that direction.
So your not knowing, is obviously affiliated with non existence, simply because God doesn't exist. Either that or God does exist.

So Does God exist as you read this for the first time?

No, it is simply your misinterpretation of the definitions that brings in the assumption of God's existence.
As explained above, the definition logically does not make the assumption that God exists.
It makes the assumption that "belief in God" exists - and that atheists lack this.

Belief or lack of belief in God, isn't the subject matter. God is the subject, we either accept or we don't.
If you don't believe what I say about God, it doesn't mean you don't believe or believe in God.
You're not an atheist because you reject others claim about God. You're an atheist because you don't believe in God.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

You're not an atheist because you reject others claim about God.

That depends on the nature of the claims rejected, and the extent of the population of "others" making them.

There is no God, or existence of God, that you can decide.

Strayed. There are various postulated existences of various gods and entire categories of gods that can be decided, and are: by some atheists, in the negative.
Other atheists never got around to it.

You're not an atheist because you reject others claim about God. You're an atheist because you don't believe in God.

You continue to attempt to frame your claims as about, independent from, an existing god. That begs the question. The claims and the gods are identical, unless the gods exist. You deny claiming your god exists - that leaves the claims. The atheist who rejects the claims is rejecting the god.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh my gosh!
Dave, that was part of a link from the American Atheist site.

jan.

Indeed. Great that you found an authoritative source.
Now there won't be any more nonsense from you about definitions.

Hey Mods, can we strike about a thousand posts?

 

[Baldeee]

The fact that you lack belief in God.
If you lacked belief in the notion of God, that wouldn't make you atheist.

Eh?
I also lack belief in Zargex the Almighty.
Hence by your argument Zargex the Almighty exists?

You funny guy, Jan.

So your not knowing, is obviously affiliated with non existence, simply because God doesn't exist.

Why do you assume it is affiliated with non existence?
Where have I said or implied that?
If you don't understand the position, as you clearly do not, it is better that you ask rather than just make up your own assumptions to argue against.

So Does God exist as you read this for the first time?

I don't know.

 

[James R]

That's the problem with labels. They're fixed in your mind and they don't have to have any real relationship with what you're labelling.

This is a good point.

It reminds me of a story Carl Sagan told. he was walking through the forest with his father and saw a bird. He asked something along the lines of "What kind of bird is that?"

There followed a discussion about the naming of things. His father explained that if you are told "That's a blackbird" then you still know nothing about the bird, other than what (some) people call it. He said that if you want to really know about the bird, you need to observe the bird.

Jan Ardena thinks that sticking a label on atheists means he understands atheism.

 

[DaveC426913]

Jan Ardena thinks that sticking a label on atheists means he understands atheism.

It's worse than that. Jan thinks that sticking his own label on something forces that thing to conform to his choice of label.

It would be tantamount to declaring that, since Jan believes in the God of the Bible, therefore Jan thinks the world is only 6000 years old (because we get to pick the definition of the label). And then we can just repeat that over and over and over, no matter how he refutes it.

Fortunately, we recognize that would not be arguing in good faith.

 

[Michael 345]

You can all relax. Problem has been solved by a petty criminal here in Australia Northern Territory


Darwin NT News today 26/10/17

I don't know if Mr O'Neil intends to introduce his new friend to the Vatican or other religious leaders
Maybe a book tour. Might be a smart move to update Version 1 first

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Forgive me if I don't respond to your posts point by point. Many of the points you have made are repeats of what you said before, and I don't think I need to repeat myself also.

You seem to be unwilling to admit that you believe that God exists in reality. Instead, you hedge around and say things "It doesn't work like that for me." I'm wondering how it does work for you, then.

Is it perhaps the case that you don't think that God exists in reality? Do you place your trust and faith in something that you don't actually believe exists?

I'm puzzled, because I think most theists would have no problem being "out" about their belief that God is real. And yet, you seem to studiously avoid making any claim that God is real. You often come close. You say things like "God just IS". But then you go on to deny that God's IS-ness obviously implies that God is real.

Do you perhaps have an argument you make to yourself that allows this God to be ("God IS") and yet not reveal himself as a real being? If so, could you share it with me, so I can better understand your position?

I don't think about God, the way you think about God James. So it's pointless going down that road.

It's not clear to me how you think about God, in that case, and I'm interested.

I see theism, and atheism, as natural. They are fundamental. I am theist, and you are atheist.
To me God just IS.
You are without God.

So you are an essentialist? That is, you think that people are born atheist or theist, and that's all there is to it? Or perhaps you think their atheism or theism is thrust on them by nature, and they're stuck with what they get?

See, for me, when I thought about whether to believe in God I didn't start from "I'm an atheist, so I'll close myself off to the theist perspective, and go from there." Nor did I say "I'm going to start by believing in God, so I'll close myself off to the alternative, and see where that takes me as a theist." Rather, I said started from something more like "Let me learn about the idea of God, what people say about God, what evidence there is of God in the world, what I sense/feel about God, and keep an open mind". Having said that, when I first heard about God I was a child, so I was very willing to trust what my parents and teachers told me about God. It was only later that I broadened my horizons and started investigating more widely on my own.

I don't think anybody is a "natural" theist or a "natural" atheist. I think theism is mostly something that is indoctrinated into people from an early age. Most people learn about theism long before they are aware that atheism is even a possibility.

And as I am now, I don't believe that I'm an atheist because of anything "fundamental" or essentialist or "natural". Atheism is just a rational conclusion I have reached. And there's nothing necessarily fixed about that. There's nothing that says atheism or theism is forever. It wasn't for me when I was a theist, so why would atheism be any different?

In what way were you like me?

I believed in God, just like you believe in God.

You clearly didn't give it any real thought.

There's that arrogant assumption again. I gave it lots of thought.

You most probably wanted something, or things. They didn't materialize, so you said sod this.

That's a fairly common assumption that theists like yourself make about atheists. You assume ex-theists weren't "in" religion for the same noble reasons you're in it. No, the evil atheists must have been in it for selfish reasons.

In fact, atheists are people just like you, no better or worse, fundamentally. They just don't happen to believe in God.

I'm nothing like you were, or are.

I've lived both sides, so I think I'm in a far better position to judge that than you are.

You are an atheist, I am a theist. These are fundamentals.

It turned out there was nothing "fundamental", fixed or essentialist about my theism. So bang goes your theory.

And stay tuned for the inevitable rationalisations: how I was always "essentially" an atheist, despite anything I say; how I didn't do theism "properly"; how I was always secretly keeping God out of my life, even when I professed the normal theistic faith and belief; etc.

You don't want to believe in God. Why pretend otherwise?

Why is it important what I want, or what you want? Is it any more likely that God will exist if I want him to? Will he spring into existence if I wish hard enough? Is that what happened for you?

We all know that a convincing argument is not going to arrive, because you'll reject everything (just like it says on the label).

Is this you admitting there is no convincing argument for God, then? Or just no argument that you think might convince me?

Do you think it is possible for an essentialist atheist like myself ever to change and start believing in God? I can think of examples of atheists who have flipped their belief. You like talking about Anthony Flew, for example. Do you think he was really secretly a "natural" theist all along, then? Why did a convincing argument arrive for him? Or did it? Maybe he just decided to start being a theist. But, if so, what happened to his essentialist "nature"?

So the fact that God doesn't actually exist, for you, is not really a consideration?

You keep insisting on that particular form of words: "For atheists, God does not exist, as far as they are aware." It's like a mantra for you. And, apparently, a "fact".

I'd like to unpack why you're so insistent on this.

Here's hypothesis 1:

Maybe it's because of the emphasis on awareness, or rather, lack thereof. God exists, you assume, so atheists must be unaware of God. So, I, Jan, will get the atheists to admit that they are not aware of God, and I will take that to mean that they admit that God exists but that they lack the appropriate capacity to perceive God.

Here's hypothesis 2:

Maybe it's because of the "for you" that you like to slip in there. God exists, you assume, but existence isn't something that is the same for everybody. That is, things can exist for one person, but simultaneously not exist for somebody else. So, I, Jan, will get the atheists to admit that God does not exist for them, and I will take that to mean that it's OK by them if God exists for me.

Here's what I think about these hypotheses, whichever is correct:

I have no awareness of the existence of God. That could be (a) because God exists and I lack capacity, or (b) because God doesn't exist. To decide which of these is the correct explanation, we'd first need to establish whether God actually exists or not. And since it doesn't seem that we're making much progress along that path, it's an open question as to why I'm not aware of God.

As for hypothesis 2, I reject your relativism and say that either God exists or he doesn't. You're very welcome to have your belief in God, but God's existence does not follow from your belief in him. I would also add that your reluctance to come straight out and say that God exists exposes a lack of confidence on your part in what underlies your belief.

You have no idea how I live my life, or how I relate to God, because you're an atheist. The best you can do is guess, or try to imagine (not sure why you'd do that). But be prepared to be told that you're mistaken, because you most certainly will be.

You're right, in a sense. Because you won't tell me, or anybody else, I am left to draw conclusions from other things that you write. And from what I'm gathering here, you have little confidence that God exists in reality. It "doesn't work like that" for you, you tell me.

I've explained to you how and why I believe in God, many times.

Yes. You say, in effect, "I just do. It's natural."

On the one hand, your position strikes me as a kind of default that you've never really sat down to consider. It's like you started believing in God and never honestly considered the alternative. It's like a habit. Or maybe it's like a belief that you have a "God gene", and there's nothing you can do about it.

On the other hand, it's like you're almost apologising for your belief, telling me that there's nothing you can do about it. It wasn't your choice; it's not your fault. Blame "nature".

 

[James R]

If you lack belief in God, that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means you actually lack belief in God.

Are we going to discuss the meaning of "lack" again?

You would have us accept that the meaning of "lack" requires that the thing "lacked" must exist. But I can lack a polkadot dinner suit in the same way that I can lack belief in God. Lacking the dinner suit doesn't mean I secretly accept that the suit exists, or that I secretly would like to own the suit, or that I really need the suit to live a fulfilled life.

Also, when you ask for evidence of God, you imply that the evidence should be clear for atheists.

Evidence is what it is. There's strong evidence and weak evidence, convincing evidence and unconvincing evidence, equivocal evidence and unequivocal evidence. The point is, most people have some idea about what "counts" as evidence, and what doesn't. That isn't unique to atheists.

Because you don't know what God is.

Let's be honest. Nothing I tell you about what God is will be sufficient to convince you I know what God is. There'll always be some sense in which I am mistaken about God, or in which my understanding is inadequate or compromised, as far as you're concerned

The executive summary is this: maybe God exists; maybe it doesn't.

But does it currently exist, as far as you are currently aware?

I just told you.

You're asking if I know whether God exists. Answer: I don't know. And neither do you, despite what you think. Knowledge doesn't follow from belief.

I don't believe that God exists, but belief is not about "awareness", despite what you may think.

And see my previous discussion of my hypotheses in your real motivation for asking this question repeatedly, as you do.

You see it like that because you are an atheist.
Don't you get it?

No. I am an atheist because I see it like that. I'm not an essentialist like you are. See the difference?

You're the one who thinks evidence is required to believe in God.

Not at all. Lots of people demonstrable don't require it. They believe for irrational reasons: for emotional reasons, as a result of wishful thinking, or simply because they haven't really considered the alternative in some cases.

Speaking personally, I am not going to believe in God without some evidence or argument that convinces me. But there's nothing special about God in that regard. I apply the same process when I decide on whether to believe anything.

I don't know what you do. Each to his own, I guess.

I accept God, and understand that evidence (however that pertains to actually accepting God), can at best strengthen ones belief, or disbelief (if you're an atheist). I think it is very silly to sit around waiting for ''evidence'' or ''good explanations'', to access God. Life is short, there's no point in kidding yourself.

This is probably the most honest thing you've said recently about your own belief. Thank you for that honesty.

Obviously, I do not agree with your approach on this. And I think, ultimately, that's a more real and important difference between us than anything in your straw-man definition of "atheism".

If that was the case, you'd accept that the evidence that is put forward for God, is evidence. But you reject, and deny it.

I accept that the evidence usually put forward for God is evidence. It's just not very persuasive. When it's objective evidence, there always seems to be an equally plausible explanation, and when it's subjective that I think it usually tells us more about the person putting it up than it does about God.

Don't need to cherry-pick. Even the quote from an atheist site implies God exists, but they choose not to accept it.

If it implies that for you, you're not reading it right. Atheists don't believe that God exists. That should be obvious to you. Why do you need to try to twist that around and pretend that atheists secretly believe that God exists after all? It is what it is. Live with it.