Perfectly evil God

[Randwolf]

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

Bingo. With this change: "I guess it would not be impossible easy to accept."

Lost cause. Stop hitting your head against a brick wall. You too, James. I wish the entire internet would stop trying to convert theists, they are categorically incorrigible. Plus, who cares?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Are you anthropomorphising him

Are you hinting that I am the last to know that Jan is AI programed to amuse us?

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Plus, who cares

I care.
I am a caring person.
If Jan needs help to reach enlightenment I am there for him.

Of course no one will change their position and I have said before if I thought anyone would change their belief because of anything I may say I would keep silent.
So why...I dont know.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Are you hinting that I am the last to know that Jan is AI programed to amuse us?

Alex

I had not even thought of that possibility but now you mention it I can see certainly it / he could be

However if if if you accept it as AI I would put it (as a AI) as being stuck at the dumb level of a 4 year old, on the human scale of dumbness
Even if the AI would have started as a dumb 4 year old it should have learnt something by now and I don't see any sign of that. Poor programming?

I think we all should be kind to Jan and help him through what must be for him difficult times.

Dispite the use of the word "we" in the above I took the comment to mean "I" think of him as someone in difficult times

I can sort of see where you are coming from and I am sure you truely believe he has issues

As you are aware I don't do stupid and put on iggy way back

My suggestion, note SUGGESTION, to you is - leave it to the experts to help anybody out of such problems. Problems which they refuse to accept they have

Is it not ironic that it appears you being pig headed in your atheism are being encouraged to believe in "Is" by someone pig headed in their belief of "Is"?

While you are strongly suggesting "Is" is not in existence

Trust me you do not have enough coins in the purse between your legs to do it

Hard enough with medication and padded cell having been involved in such efforts

 

[Jan Ardena]

And your difficulty in separating objective fact from subjective experience again rears its ugly head

You keep repeating this.
What do you mean.?

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.

It is a self motivated condition...

"The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

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.

What objective are you talking about, regarding yellow?

Then there is no God for the theist, either.

Obviously, as far as your concerned.

There is no God, for the atheist, period.

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.

Because atheists accept that there is no God. Hence the bible verse above.

The other question arises is why a loving God (assuming you believe in such) would deny atheists the ability perceive his supreme wondrousness.

That's not a serious question, as far as you're concerned.

You may well describe God as barbaric, or, a non-worthy designer.

IOW, it makes no difference, because there is no God as far as you're concerned.

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.

I've never personally defined God. All my definitions corroborate with every scripture.

Can you elaborate on what "odds" you think I have with other theists?

When did people acquire the ability to decide what their impressions are

An impression is an idea, feeling, or opinion, about someone, something, some place, etc. I have an impression of what you look like, even though I've never seen you. That impression is based on my decision.

No. It is because I comprehend God that I see it for what it is, and that's why I'm an atheist.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I didn't. Look at the opening post of this thread. It is not concerned with whether God exists.

Your opening statement proposes a maximally evil God exists.
Why can't you just discuss God?

The problems with both of these statements have been explained to you at length, yet you persist.

The explanations are biased. For example you cannot accept that because you are atheist, you cannot comprehend God.
That makes more sense than what your explanations propose.

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.

Firstly, I do accept atheism. Both, as you see it, and for what it actually means. The problem is, you don't accept it for what it actually means. You tend to sweep that under the carpet.

Why do you think comprehending atheism is only proper comprehension, when done by atheists, or those that agree with atheists?

Let's take this thread for example. Why propose God as evil? Why not simply discuss God. Moderate the comedians so they don't disrupt. In all these years, you've never considered God as serious subject. I think it is because you are in denial. I think you are afraid to discuss the subject of God, in a serious manner, because there are points that you will have to accept. But you don't want to.

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.

That doesn't mean they are theist. It means they believe in their Culture, or the people they look up to.
Belief is entirely individual, and out of our control. Which is why we reject and deny things we don't want to believe.

It wouldn't chance anything, but it would give a much better insight into why you really believe what you believe.

How would that help in this thread, for example?

I get the impression that you only ever scratch the surface of what your belief means to you, here.

I get that impression with most, including yourself, on here.
I get the feeling you hide behind these threads you post. That there's more to you than what you write.

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 don't see the point in getting personal.
I don't require personal details from folk, to make an analysis. In fact, I think focus can be weakened if things get too personal, then it's no fun anymore.

Aside from that, I do offer a lot of what my personal belief is, but I just don't highlight it. I'm sure other theists pick up on it.

I've been a theist. I'm confident that I comprehend God quite well enough, both from a subjective and an objective viewpoint.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

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.

More importantly, I think you should listen to what have to tell you (as well) . But I do listen to what you say. I think, you think you say more than you actually do.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan says it is the atheist who is in denial but it seems it is ideed Jan is the one who is in denial.

Okay, let's see where this goes.
Me thinks it will go nowhere.

I think we all should be kind to Jan and help him through what must be for him difficult times.

What a nice man!

Everybody! On the count of tree, let's give Alex a round of applause.



Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The fool says in his heart, there is no God".

So where does this come from your words Jan or something some ancient made up sound byte that you like to parrot...
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Me thinks it will go nowhere.

All you have to do is open your heart (mind) and accept,nay embrace reality.

Enlightenment will overwhelm you and you will rejoice in the uplifting freedom you will experience.

On the count of tree, let's give Alex a round of applause.

So very nice of you Jan but its is not necessary although mildly welcomed for it is you that we need to concentrate on you and the way you are trying to cope with denial of the reality you now reluctantly embrace.
You are getting close to enlightenment just be strong.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

All you have to do is open your heart (mind) and accept,nay embrace reality.

Enlightenment will overwhelm you and you will rejoice in the uplifting freedom you will experience.

So very nice of you Jan but its is not necessary although mildly welcomed for it is you that we need to concentrate on you and the way you are trying to cope with denial of the reality you now reluctantly embrace.
You are getting close to enlightenment just be strong.
Alex

Alex. I am hanging on your every word.
Keep writing, brother.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So where does this come from your words Jan or something some ancient made up sound byte that you like to parrot...
Alex

You mean, it's entirely meaningless?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Alex. I am hanging on your every word.
Keep writing, brother.


Jan.

I suggest you do a print out so you can read them over in your quieter moments.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You mean, it's entirely meaningless?

Jan.

No not at all. They have meaning for you I expect.
I just wondered if you were the author or if you were quoting someone else.
I probably should have asked in a better fashion so you took my question seriously.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

No not at all. They have meaning for you I expect.

I'll go one better.
I'll get it vocalised so I can play it all day.
I may even upload it to social media. With your esteemed, enlightened permission. Of course.

I just wondered if you were the author or if you were quoting someone else.
I probably should have asked in a better fashion so you took my question seriously.
Alex

Me? Nah!
I take your questions very seriously, Alex.
Nothing less for highly enlightened being that you are. Not to mention very nice.
If you say it, it must be right due to your enlightenedness-ness.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

So where does this come from your words Jan or something some ancient made up sound byte that you like to parrot...
Alex

Alex, it's from Psalm 14:1.
Unfortunately the way Jan uses it is to commit a fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Jan's intention, whether he admits to it or not, whether he tries to explicitly claim it is not his intention or not, is to denigrate those who he thinks say in their heart that there is no God, and equate such a position with that of the fool. Alas, what Jan fails to understand is that this is not a statement that all those who say such in their heart are fools, but that one of the aspects of those who do fit the label of "fool" (as the word has been translated) is that they say in their heart that there is no God.
Before you think I have just said that I am saying it means what I have said it doesn't mean, let me explain by way of example:
A sergeant major is a member of the armed forces, right, but does this mean that all members of the armed forces are sergeants major?

Just as those in the class of "fools" say that God does not exist, not everyone who says that God does not exist necessarily fits into the category of "fool".

This can be shown by the next lines in Psalm 14:1 in the further description of "fool": "They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good".
Now, if you believe that everyone who says "there is no God" is corrupt, their deeds vile, can not do good, then you might equate "fool" with those who say "there is no God". But if you do not believe that everyone who says such is necessarily corrupt, their deeds necessarily vile, that they necessarily can not do good, then the "fool" is merely a descriptor of a certain class of person of which one attribute is that they say in their heart "there is no God". But this attribute can be shared by others who are not "fools".

So whenever Jan spouts that mantra (whether accompanied by his lame "not that I'm calling you a fool" or not) just ignore it as being irrelevant, and point out his fallacy.
If he continues to try to equate "fools" with anyone who "says in his heart 'there is no God'" then just tell him to stop taking quotes out of context, and if he continues further then ask him to state explicitly what he thinks: does he think all atheists are corrupt, all atheists do only vile deeds, that they can not do any good. If not then his quote is, as suspected, irrelevant. If, however, he does, then we have a whole new ball-game to play.

That's what I would do, anyway, Alex.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I'll get it vocalised so I can play it all day.

Yes I can see that would be helpful...we can overlay the vocals on that nice clip you put up the other day.

With your esteemed, enlightened permission. Of course.

Go ahead we owe it to the poor confused folk to assist them find enlightenment.

If you say it, it must be right due to your enlightenedness-ness.

Now you are getting somewhere just relax and enjoy the small glimpse of enlightenment and be happy you have found someone who's word you know is totally reliable.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That's what I would do, anyway, Alex.

Thank you for your advice.
I would find it hard to accept that Jan considers me on such a low level but then I always expect the best from everyone.
But if Jan wishes to call me a fool and that gives him higher self esteem I will manage.
In fact I enjoy playing the fool so I really wont feel insulted.

And I would not wish Jan to regard any of my words as really serious as I may be seen as preaching to him.

And thanks for the reference for Jans quote.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes I can see that would be helpful...we can overlay the vocals on that nice clip you put up the other day.

Go ahead we owe it to the poor confused folk to assist them find enlightenment.

Now you are getting somewhere just relax and enjoy the small glimpse of enlightenment and be happy you have found someone who's word you know is totally reliable.
Alex

No probs Alex.
Just keep that enlightenment coming.
Don't be shy.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thank you for your advice.
I would find it hard to accept that Jan considers me on such a low level but then I always expect the best from everyone.
But if Jan wishes to call me a fool and that gives him higher self esteem I will manage.
In fact I enjoy playing the fool so I really wont feel insulted.

And I would not wish Jan to regard any of my words as really serious as I may be seen as preaching to him.

And thanks for the reference for Jans quote.

Alex

Very wise.

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Don't be shy.

I try not to be shy but well you know I simply have that as a problem.
I tend to hide my thoughts as you must already know.

Anyways I best let you get back to your discussion with James and I must say I have found it very interesting so far.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Unfortunately the way Jan uses it is to commit a fallacy of affirming the consequent.

I emphasise on the "there is no God".

Jan's intention, whether he admits to it or not, whether he tries to explicitly claim it is not his intention or not, is to denigrate those who he thinks say in their heart that there is no God, and equate such a position with that of the fool.

You're a liar.

Just as those in the class of "fools" say that God does not exist, not everyone who says that God does not exist necessarily fits into the category of "fool".

It has nothing to do with what we physically say.

If he continues to try to equate "fools" with anyone who "says in his heart 'there is no God'" then just tell him to stop taking quotes out of context, and if he continues further then ask him to state explicitly what he thinks: does he think all atheists are corrupt, all atheists do only vile deeds, that they can not do any good. If not then his quote is, as suspected, irrelevant. If, however, he does, then we have a whole new ball-game to play.

What is a vile, or corrupted deed, in your opinion?

So whenever Jan spouts that mantra (whether accompanied by his lame "not that I'm calling you a fool" or not) just ignore it as being irrelevant, and point out his fallacy.

IOW put your fingers in your ears, and shout la la la. Because you don't want to hear anything that contradicts your sculptured perception. Kind of corrupt. What?

Now you want to spread your corruption in the hope that others maintain their "there is no God" mindset.

From a perspective, that is "vile", because you are potentially preventing another soul from realising he is a part of God.

What basis are you preventing such a thing? No basis at all. That's the nastiness

If you want, we can go down the rabbit hole.

Jan.