Then why do you persist with the silly claim that there are no actual atheists?
Because atheism isn't practical.
There isn't an atheist way of life.
You simply don't believe in in God.
Do you think that, right now, as I tell you that I do not share your belief in an all-powerful God, that secretly, deep down, I really do have that belief, after all, and I just don't realise it?
Or what?
I think subconsciously, you're not an atheist.
To reject or deny would mean I accept that it is real. I do not.
Not if you've convinced yourself that there is no God.
We're talking about the subconscious.
God's existence doesn't appear to be necessary for anything. Judging by what we know so far, the observable universe seems quite amenable to explanation, without any need to introduce supernatural forces of any kind.
What do we know so far, why God's existence doesn't appear necessary?
Do we know cause of the universe?
Do we know what was before the universe?
Do we know where consciousness comes from?
What you need to grasp, fundamentally, is that no matter how strong your gut feeling is that God is real, there is nothing objective about that (other than the fact that you're having the feeling). Your subjective belief that there is a God doesn't make God real.
You're just going round in circles.
What you need to grasp, fundamentally, is that no matter how strong your gut feeling is that atheism is real, there is nothing objective about that (other than the fact that you're having the feeling). Your subjective belief that there is atheism doesn't make it atheism real.
If you project your worldview on to me, I can just as easily turn it around on you, and you won't be able to defend it, without wasting a lot of time.
Tell me something about God, why God isn't necessary, or why God isn't real, so we discuss.
(Watch as this point flies over your head again.)
Change the record James.
Why do you think such a thing is needed at all? And why just one Cause, with a capital C? Why not many?
I understand: the belief comes first, then the rationalisations.
Haven't really given it much thought.
When I do, I'll get back to you.
You understand that there is no God, as far as you're aware.
Clearly our observable universe is not eternal; there was a big bang 13.8 billion years ago that resulted in all the stuff we can see today. But I don't see how this fact in any way obliges me to accept God.
I know you don't.
It's only an assumption that there is a finite string of causes that must lead back to God. An unprovable assumption held on faith, just like the rest of your God belief.
That's not what theism is about James.
A lot of the things you're bringing up, is neither here, nor there.
It makes no difference.
No. I doubt the existence of the God that you describe.
You can only pretend to doubt a Supreme Cause, via rejection, and denial.
Not that you ever provide much in the way of a detailed description; I think you're afraid to overembellish because you wantour God to be as small a target as possible, and every time you pin a definite characteristic on it, we tend to point out flaws in your concept.
I keep telling you, you create a strawman, then you set about not believing in that.
You're not talking about God. You're talking about a collection of things people say, then you create some kind of imaginary character.
This is why you think other people don't believe in God, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.
You have no real concept of God, because you don't accept God. You don't understand how it works. It is so much simpler than you seem to think.
It would have to be, because God is for all. Even the ones that want to live as though God does not exist.
Who's to say there is anything to deny or reject?
Not the people who deny and reject.
You don't ever dare, and you're the theist. Maybe you'd do better to come clean on what you think God is, and what you think God does, and how you think God manifests.
I constantly discuss God, but it goes over your head. Because you're too busy rejecting and denying.
You think discussions on God should your way, the typical atheist/theist discussion/debate. But that just goes round and round in circles.
Because all you do is reject, and deny, your idea of what you think theists believe in.
When I was theist like you, I was quite happy to talk about my God to other people who were interested.
I'll believe you were a theist, when you talk about your relationship with God. Not interested in your warm fuzzy feelings. I want you to talk about God. If you can't do that, then you weren't a theist. You may have been a Christian. But not a theist.
What kind of dialogue would you use when talking to people about God?
How did you describe God to them?
What was your state of being, when describing God to them?
Just give me a taste.
I didn't hide him away and reduce his role in the world to that of an abstract Cause of all causes, buried somewhere back in the dim past. I don't think this is actually your conception of God, either, but this is the only impression we can take from what you post here.
You cannot currently recognise God, James.
I talk about God, all the time, but you don't get it.
Why do you avoid talking about your God so much, Jan? Is it because you're actually embarrassed to admit what you believe in front of a bunch of atheists? Is that what all the avoidance and evasion and constant redefinition is really about?
This is how I know you were never a theist.
How many times to I have to tell you that I accept that God is a possibility?
You say you do. There is a difference.
You don't know what to accept.
At best, you're simply waiting around for some materialist breakthrough, that satisfies your worldview.
Either something exists, and you accept it as God, or nothing ever materialises, and you carry on as you were.
There is no God, as far as you're aware James, and you have no idea of what constitutes evidence, or probability.
It's all lip service, to come across as rational, or whatever.
It's similar to idea of an eternal universe, which I discussed above, although the eternal universe idea is more plausible in that it requires far fewer ad hoc assumptions than the kind of gods described by religions.
Well, good luck with that.
I hope you find what you're looking for.
This is really the bottom line with your God belief. I understand. Having faith in an unevidenced belief is enough for you. It's too big a stretch for me.
No it's not. You simply choose not to accept God. That's how you become an atheist.
There may be a thousand reason that you can come up with for your disbelief, but it is based on a conscious non acceptance of God.
You're probably right. If I could just give up reason and choose to believe (to have faith), then I could be a theist (once again), just like you.
You have given up reason. The moment you denied your relationship with your creator.
In the same way, if I could give up reason, I could probably happily embrace homeopathy, pyramid power, astrology and any other number of superstitions. There's no evidence for any of those things, either, but if you have faith that's no barrier to belief in them.
You don't even know what you're talking about.
All you know is, you have to defend your delusion.
It's a rejection of your contention that the statement "God Is" has any substantive content.
Again, I'm not surprised by this attitude.
You're an atheist. There is no God, as far as you're aware.
We've previously discussed the possible meanings of that statement at length, so I think it's fair at this point to call a spade a spade. Sorry to hurt your feelings with this reality check.
We know you really wouldn't mind if my feelings was hurt.
Maybe when we get around to talking about God, you may hurt my feelings.
Hope that's a good enough incentive for you to go and actually learn about your creator, instead of talking about your atheist-construct of a god.
jan.