Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I say that everyone who believes in God has a silly belief.
Perfectly evil God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Are they themselves, silly, or not? For believing in God?
It's a simple question.
Jan.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
How many times are you going to ask that question? I've given you my answer twice now. I don't (try not to) use pejorative terms as it relates to a person's character. Their ideas are silly. God is a bad idea. It's silly. It's without evidence. The certainty and detail in knowledge that some claim is beyond any possible justification and it's therefore silly behavior.
So every theist's, acts, and conduct, toward themselves, or others, is silly, because they are theist?
Is this what you think?
Jan.
Yes it is. Look:
"Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact..."
Denial is the refusal to accept fact, not the refusal to accept fantasy.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You aren't very good at discussions are you? Maybe that's why these things go on for so long?
Why don't you read what I said rather than trying to extend my remarks to figure out what I think?
I pointedly said that they, as a person, aren't "silly" in a pejorative sense. This particular idea, God, is a silly idea. I'm sure they love their dogs and not in a silly way.
Are you trying to be silly?
Your answers aren't clear.
I did read what you wrote. It was non distinct, so I am pressing you to give a clear, and simple answer, just for the record.
Are you sure that's what you said?
You probably deleted it by mistake, cause I don't see such a statement, or anything that could portray that meaning, anywhere.
You claim that you "have no reason" to believe in such a silly idea like God.
Do you think it is silly to believe in something for which one has no reason to? If you do, then how could such a person not be silly, from your POV?
But it's not like wearing a silly jumper. Is it? Where you can wear it as often as you like. If a person believes in God, and you believe the their belief is silly. Then as far as your concerned, theists must be silly, because they believe in God all the time.
So those who believe in God 24/7, must be silly 24/7, from your POV, meaning you believe theists are silly people.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No.
But by dint of being a theist, you automatically accept that I am.
Jan.
Denial is the fantasy.
You fantasise about an existence with no God, to the point where you believe it.
You do this by denial.
Jan.
I'm sorry Jan, but you can't prove your God exists by mere assertion. You need to do better. Until such time as you can make a convincing argument for the existence of your God, you can't claim any atheist is in denial about his existence.
Stop with the irony. You're killing me.
You cannot prove the opposite by mere assertion.
Who do I need to convince?
In an ocean of atheists coming to their senses, and accepting God, where as there ever been a conversion based on a "convincing argument"?
The problem is, you are currently clueless. Even your statements lack comprehension.
I can claim that atheists are in denial of God, because it is true.
Am I really?
Jan.
Jan Ardena:
I think the majority of people who claim they were atheist and then "find God" do so on the basis of feelings they have, combined with certain desires, rather than because of some kind of process of rational argument. And that, in itself, ought to tell you something, if you think about it a bit.
It might well make you comfortable to imagine that atheists are stupid and/or "clueless", because what is the alternative? That atheists have a point? Heaven forbid!
Correct. I have never attempted to prove that God does not exist. Conclusively proving a negative like that is practically impossible. On the other hand, if an all-powerful, personal God did exist and chose to reveal himself to human beings, one would have thought that convincing evidence would be relatively easy to come by. Alas, that isn't the case. Instead, all we have is testimony about people's feelings, and some old stories that people wrote down.
The people to whom you are trying to demonstrate that atheists deny your God, of course. If you're not trying to convince anybody, why tell us your opinion ... again? We've heard your opinion on this topic many times already. There's no doubt what you think.
I'm not sure. Given that the vast majority of people say they believe in God, life after death, souls and the like, at least in some vague way, conversions to atheism are statistically far more likely than conversions away from it.
I think the majority of people who claim they were atheist and then "find God" do so on the basis of feelings they have, combined with certain desires, rather than because of some kind of process of rational argument. And that, in itself, ought to tell you something, if you think about it a bit.
It's very easy to demonise the "other" in the way that you do. Far easier than trying to come to grips with why their view is so diametrically opposed to yours.
It might well make you comfortable to imagine that atheists are stupid and/or "clueless", because what is the alternative? That atheists have a point? Heaven forbid!
And rinse and repeat.
Depends how you view your discussions.
Not for an atheist.
A colour blind from birth person could say the same thing about the explanations of the various colours.
I'm not trying to demonstrate God to atheists. That would be a pointless pursuit as they are in denial.
I've heard yours, and other atheists on this topic many times already, and there's no doubt what you think.
Yet there are atheists who realise theism, and non of them come by way of a suitable explanation.
They always come to it by there own understanding. That's how you're going to become theist. By yourself.
You think like an atheist.
I've never said atheists are stupid.
Either God does not exist, or God has not be shown to exist, via science, or explanation.
What point do you have outside of that?
jan.
Jan Ardena:
It is not the case that atheists can't see God because they're atheist. Rather, atheists are atheist because they can't see God. You always get the causation backwards. It goes: no evidence for God --> atheist. It doesn't go: atheist --> can't see the evidence.
If it really did work the way you think it works, then nobody could ever "convert" from atheism to theism.
You know, your perception of a colour like "yellow" can be triggered in at least two ways. One way is to shine a single wavelength of light at you. Another way is to shine two different wavelengths of light at you, which you would identify as "red" and "green" if they were shone separately. The question then arises: what is this "yellow" thing we talk about? Dig down a bit and we discover that "yellow" is more or less an idea. Some people don't even recognise "yellow" as a separate colour (even with perfectly normal vision). Some don't have a separate word for "yellow". Nevertheless, everybody will agree that they perceive something when they see a yellow light or a yellow object. And the odd case where all perception is absent is readily explainable (e.g. by the fact that the person's eyes don't work correctly).
With God, though, there's nothing that we can all agree about that establishes beyond doubt that there is something that we can identify as God. All we can agree on is a concept. And you can offer no reason for why atheists are somehow blinded to seeing your God, other than the weak claim that they secretly do see God, but are in denial for some unexplained reason.
For somebody who regularly proclaims that he is not trying to convince anybody of anything, you sure do go on about how atheists are blind, mistaken, and in denial, an awful lot. You know what I think? I think you're trying to convince yourself.
Theists who "realise" atheism, on the other hand, tend to come to it after a process of investigation into the underlying assumptions of their religion, which usually go unquestioned in the religious traditions themselves. They discover that their own religion, and later other religions too, are built on uncertain foundations which are then assumed to be solid.
As for myself, I've already been a theist, as you know. Unless some extraordinary evidence comes to light at some stage, I'm very unlikely ever to embrace theism again.
Unfortunately, you seem largely unwilling to provide any insight into the answer to that question, reluctant as you are to share any of your religious experience with us here. Instead, you seem to want to spend most of your time making silly assertions about atheists.
You're not saying anything you haven't said many times before.
It is not the case that atheists can't see God because they're atheist. Rather, atheists are atheist because they can't see God. You always get the causation backwards. It goes: no evidence for God --> atheist. It doesn't go: atheist --> can't see the evidence.
If it really did work the way you think it works, then nobody could ever "convert" from atheism to theism.
We've been down this path before, too.
You know, your perception of a colour like "yellow" can be triggered in at least two ways. One way is to shine a single wavelength of light at you. Another way is to shine two different wavelengths of light at you, which you would identify as "red" and "green" if they were shone separately. The question then arises: what is this "yellow" thing we talk about? Dig down a bit and we discover that "yellow" is more or less an idea. Some people don't even recognise "yellow" as a separate colour (even with perfectly normal vision). Some don't have a separate word for "yellow". Nevertheless, everybody will agree that they perceive something when they see a yellow light or a yellow object. And the odd case where all perception is absent is readily explainable (e.g. by the fact that the person's eyes don't work correctly).
With God, though, there's nothing that we can all agree about that establishes beyond doubt that there is something that we can identify as God. All we can agree on is a concept. And you can offer no reason for why atheists are somehow blinded to seeing your God, other than the weak claim that they secretly do see God, but are in denial for some unexplained reason.
Next time, perhaps try replying to what I wrote, rather than to what you wish I'd written.
Then why do you persist in bringing the same tired topic up over and over again? You're not adding anything new. I'm not adding anything new. We both know each other's opinions.
For somebody who regularly proclaims that he is not trying to convince anybody of anything, you sure do go on about how atheists are blind, mistaken, and in denial, an awful lot. You know what I think? I think you're trying to convince yourself.
I would guess that most atheists who become theists start off uninterested in religion or by being brought up in a non-religious environment. Theists are mostly theists by upbringing. Occasionally, people who don't know much about religion suddenly discover it, either by themselves or through another person, and some of them go on to enthusiastically embrace it. Either way, I don't think anybody comes to theism without exposure to the ideas of one religious tradition or another.
Theists who "realise" atheism, on the other hand, tend to come to it after a process of investigation into the underlying assumptions of their religion, which usually go unquestioned in the religious traditions themselves. They discover that their own religion, and later other religions too, are built on uncertain foundations which are then assumed to be solid.
As for myself, I've already been a theist, as you know. Unless some extraordinary evidence comes to light at some stage, I'm very unlikely ever to embrace theism again.
And you think like somebody who has certain difficulties that you barely recognise, such as an apparent lack of capacity to separating subjective experience from objective fact. I'm not sure whether that's a typical theist trait, or more you own particular brand of theism.
Oh good.
My main point has always been to question why you would believe in something on the basis of unreliable evidence, of the kind you rely on to bolster your devotion to your God.
Unfortunately, you seem largely unwilling to provide any insight into the answer to that question, reluctant as you are to share any of your religious experience with us here. Instead, you seem to want to spend most of your time making silly assertions about atheists.
Neither are you.
From your perspective, maybe. But the reality is that for atheists "there is no God". So even if God is there, you can't acknowledge, unless you make up a pretend God.
You mean if atheists are in denial?
Denial doesn't have to be long term.
Neither does ignorance or rejection.
Not if the person is unable to see any colour at all.
Meaning, some people do, and those that do recognize it as yellow.
James. For the atheist, there is no God.
Do you think it impossible that God Is, but as an atheist, you cannot perceive God?
If you at least try and comprehend God, you will realize that God cannot not exist. But you can decide to have the impression that there is no God. Hence the term atheist.
It is because you are atheist, why you cannot comprehend God, let alone see God. If you couldn't see, it would be because you are blinded, or blind.
The reasons for being blind can be many, but you would be blind. It works the same way with atheists.
Why do you?
I accept your atheism, and I accept that for you there is no evidence for God, hence you cannot believe. Until you stop denying, or rejecting. That is why we cannot make progress.
"Blind" is a metaphor. I've never said atheists are blind. And I've never said they are an awful lot. For someone who claims to know what I regularly claim, you sure do put words into my mouth.
Jan
Last edited:
Why?
I'm incapable of such a belief, as are you, or anyone else. We don't set the parameters of what we believe.
We believe because everything, including elia le evidence is there. We couldn't honestly believe in it if there wasn't.
You believe there is no suitable evidence, or explanation to account for God. Yet I'm the opposite.
I'm satisfied with a lot the evidence given by debaters. To me it's obvious. To you it's not.
I don't see how sharing anything personal with you is going to change anything.
If you want to comprehend God, you have to make the decision. That is the only way, from your position.
Jan.
Jan:
You pop into virtually every thread to repeat your mantra that "Atheists are without God" and "For atheists, God does not exist", like these things are some kind of important insight about atheists that you just have to keep re-tweeting. The problems with both of these statements have been explained to you at length, yet you persist.
The best predictor of a person's religious orientation is the religion of his or her parents. Why should that be?
As for you, I think the only way forward is to start listening to what atheists have to tell you, rather than blocking your ears and telling them they are merely in denial.
And your difficulty in separating objective fact from subjective experience again rears its ugly head.
No. I mean if atheism is an innate condition - a starting point rather than a conclusion - as you claim it is, then to move from atheism to theism, or vice versa, would be to go against one's own basic nature, which would be impossible. And yet, people do shift in their beliefs.
The label "yellow" is learned. The experience of "yellow" is subjective, but there is also an objective element to "yellow" that can be understood and agreed to even by blind people. No such objective element seems to be available when it comes to God. We have the label. We have the subjective experience. But that's all.
Then there is no God for the theist, either.
It's possible, but then the question arises as to why atheists should be different from all you run-of-the-mill theists in terms of ability to perceive God. The other question arises is why a loving God (assuming you believe in such) would deny atheists the ability perceive his supreme wondrousness.
I understand that you, personally, define God in such a vague way it cannot possibly not exist. In that, you at odds with the vast majority of theists.
When did people acquire the ability to decide what their impressions are?
No. It is because I comprehend God that I see it for what it is, and that's why I'm an atheist.
I didn't. Look at the opening post of this thread. It is not concerned with whether God exists.
You pop into virtually every thread to repeat your mantra that "Atheists are without God" and "For atheists, God does not exist", like these things are some kind of important insight about atheists that you just have to keep re-tweeting. The problems with both of these statements have been explained to you at length, yet you persist.
You don't accept my atheism. You don't see it for what it is at all. Instead, you have to try to paint it as "denial" or "rejection" of your God. I think you're scared to think about what atheism really is, and you're very careful never to venture out of your comfort zone. It's a self-protection mechanism.
Because people who are brought up in a religious environment usually imbibe the dominant religious tradition of their parents and/or community, and so become theists by default.
The best predictor of a person's religious orientation is the religion of his or her parents. Why should that be?
Over years of talking to you, I've observed a lot of holes in the processes you apply to be satisfied with certain types of evidence. But that's largely beside the point, since, as you say, you didn't come to theism based on evidence. That is just ex post facto rationalisation that you use to buttress your pre-existing belief.
It wouldn't chance anything, but it would give a much better insight into why you really believe what you believe. I get the impression that you only ever scratch the surface of what your belief means to you, here. In fact, I think you are very guarded about saying anything at all about that. Maybe you're worried that people will ridicule your faith. Such a fear would be quite understandable in this environment.
I've been a theist. I'm confident that I comprehend God quite well enough, both from a subjective and an objective viewpoint.
As for you, I think the only way forward is to start listening to what atheists have to tell you, rather than blocking your ears and telling them they are merely in denial.
Any chance I can take this thread to the patient office, ask them for a patient on a circular discussion with a option to upgrade it to perpetual never to finish debate?
No. It just seems that way sometimes. Theist's acts and conduct aren't always silly - just sometimes. I wonder... why would you think "every theist's, acts, and conduct, toward themselves, or others, is silly"? ??? Just why, Jan?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Jan says it is the atheist who is in denial but it seems it is ideed Jan is the one who is in denial.
The realisation for Jan that there are many good reasons to support the athiest view point and many reasons to find the scriptures are no more than the written down imaginings of relative ignorant superstitious folk from the past leaves him in the state of denial he routinely suggests is the condition of others.
He can not bring himself to find flaw in the ancient writtings even though they are clearly made up. Denial.
There is never any meat in Jans sandwich and the bread is always soggy.
If I finally realised I had been sold a pup, as Jan must in his quiet moments realise, by those I trusted, and find they are demonstratably wrong I guess it would not be easy to accept...and so it must be so for Jan an therefore his denial of reality is not to be unexpected.
All he has been left with to hold on to is an inner feeling that he could not for all those years been so horribly wrong...I can understand why Jan is preoccupied with the term denial...and I think I understand why he wants to off load this unimaginable burden upon someone else.
I think we all should be kind to Jan and help him through what must be for him difficult times.
Alex
The realisation for Jan that there are many good reasons to support the athiest view point and many reasons to find the scriptures are no more than the written down imaginings of relative ignorant superstitious folk from the past leaves him in the state of denial he routinely suggests is the condition of others.
He can not bring himself to find flaw in the ancient writtings even though they are clearly made up. Denial.
There is never any meat in Jans sandwich and the bread is always soggy.
If I finally realised I had been sold a pup, as Jan must in his quiet moments realise, by those I trusted, and find they are demonstratably wrong I guess it would not be easy to accept...and so it must be so for Jan an therefore his denial of reality is not to be unexpected.
All he has been left with to hold on to is an inner feeling that he could not for all those years been so horribly wrong...I can understand why Jan is preoccupied with the term denial...and I think I understand why he wants to off load this unimaginable burden upon someone else.
I think we all should be kind to Jan and help him through what must be for him difficult times.
Alex