Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[Pinball1970]

We looked over that document you kept bringing up and there was nothing that said they wanted to teach religion, or use ID as a Trojan horse to teach religion.

Wow, you absolute unbelievable liar. Like I said, everyone remembers the thread. Reported

 

[Trek]

Because the literature and text books does not talk about Abiogenesis like a six year old. STOP misrepresenting science this way.

The point of communication is to relay an understanding to others. You understood exactly what I meant. So what’s your beef?
You and others misrepresents God and scripture all the time (this thread is a an example), so grow up.

 

[Trek]

If course you can, you just pretend you can't like a liar and troll. Reported for lying, Again and trolling AGAIN.

Like I said…
Grow up!

 

[Pinball1970]

Like I said…
Grow up

Stop lying, the forum rules are easy.

Do you have evidence that your god is anything but fairytales?

It is the OP, Answer the question .

 

[Sarkus]

If you don’t have a definition, it begs the question as to what your atheism is based on.

This isn't correct.
Let's take the example of a Glipzt. Do you have a definition of it? No. If you don't, can you say whether or not it exists? No. Therefore most people would not have the belief that a Glipzt exists, right?

Therefore you should accept that one does not need to have a definition of something in order to not have the belief that it exists.

Note that this is different to having the belief that it does not exist.

Atheism covers both positions with regard God.
If one lacks a meaningful definition of the word, one would likely lack the belief that it exists.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The sad part is "mystery" covers so many unsolvable problems with religion. Low standards regarding evidence should make one afraid to go on trial for their life.

 

[Trek]

This isn't correct.
Let's take the example of a Glipzt. Do you have a definition of it? No. If you don't, can you say whether or not it exists? No. Therefore most people would not have the belief that a Glipzt exists, right?

I can’t say anything about a Gliptz because I do not know what one is, so I can neither believe or lack belief. I can’t even be agnostic unless I have at least a known and understood definition.
Having a definition allows me to decide whether or not a Gliptz exist, and if asked why I lack a belief, I would be able to explain based on my definition/understanding. I would not need to know your definition unless it differed from mine.

So my question (what evidence would convince you about the reality of God?) is legitimate because all I hear is “lack of evidence” with regards God. If you know there is a lack of evidence, despite evidences all over the internet which you reject, it signifies that you would know what the evidence would be, if it were to show up. All I’m doing is asking what it would be because at this point I have no clue what you mean by God.
I think it’s time you guys came clean

Therefore you should accept that one does not need to have a definition of something in order to not have the belief that it exists.

What do you think “belief” is?
Do you think you can believe in anything without having some knowledge or understanding of that thing?

Note that this is different to having the belief that it does not exist.

Regardless, you still have to know something about why you believe something does not exists.

“I don’t believe the Gliptz exists because…”
“I don’t believe in the Gliptz because…”
The former can be the reason for the latter, but for it to be rational you have to have some knowledge of said Gliptz.

Atheism covers both positions with regard God.
If one lacks a meaningful definition of the word, one would likely lack the belief that it exists.

All that means is that you lack belief in the word God.
I’m asking about the meaning of the word.
What do you think God is, why you lean toward atheism or agnosticism?

 

[Trek]

You delivered a wiki link, that is the extent of your argument. Noted.

Now respond to it.
Why are you an atheist?

 

[James R]

Trek:

I already know what to expect from the type of atheists that frequent in religious threads. Maybe y’all should tone down in the sensitivity. You may even learn something

I take it that the content of my post #587 above is too challenging for you.

I asked you some questions that you either can't answer or that you don't want to face.

In response to my honesty, you have decided to stonewall.

Your manner of response speaks volumes about both your personal integrity and also, presumably, the values that your religion teaches you.

Keep hiding under your rock, then, Trek. It has been clear from the start that you lack the intellectual courage to face the hard questions with honesty and a clear head. You're an angry man with a hefty chip on his shoulder who is clearly deeply mired in dogma.

 

[James R]

Tell me what you actually know regarding the myth of the first cell

How do you think the first cell came about, Trek?

The fact is, you have your own mythology about that, don't you?

So, all the while that you lash out weakly against science, you're also being an enormous hypocrite.

The idea of the cell being a product of a creator is way more plausible than the notion of goo or ocean (you decide) randomly putting all the bits I mentioned together.

What makes ideas about abiogenesis implausible, specifically?

Have you even thought about this?

 

[Trek]

I notice that you only selectively replied to my post #587, above. It seems like you dodged all the hard questions - the ones that would require you to make an effort

James your questions aren’t hard. Period.
You’re not the only person I am conversing with, plus you are posting stuff and I am not aware of it.
Perhaps if you limit your posts to what is relevant and necessary we could have a better dialogue.

This kind of behaviour, too, is very reminiscent of another angry man who rage-quit this forum. Are you sure you don't know Jan Ardena?

Behaviour?
Again with Jan Ardena…
What are you implying by always relating me to him?

Weak evidence of a possibility is what it is: weak evidence of a possibility.

?

But you think you've confirmed the reality of your God beyond reasonable doubt, don't you?

It’s not about me James..
It is you and other atheists on here who are being asked about evidence that would make you believe God is a reality. And what is it about God that makes you think there is no evidence.

You didn't use evidence for that, I take it.

??

 

[James R]

James your questions aren’t hard. Period.

I think they are hard for you, despite your protestations.

You’re not the only person I am conversing with, plus you are posting stuff and I am not aware of it.

Either you're willing to follow a thread or you aren't. Do you have problems concentrating?

Perhaps if you limit your posts to what is relevant and necessary we could have a better dialogue.

Perhaps if you limit your posts to what is relevant, we can have a better dialogue. I mean, why waste your time posting about "standards of evidence" if you're only going to forget you even raised them as a matter of concern within a page or two of raising the issue?

Behaviour?

Selectively ignoring that which you find uncomfortable. Avoiding giving honest and open answers to straightforward questions. That kind of thing. Behaviour.

Again with Jan Ardena…
What are you implying by always relating me to him?

I think I've been clear. Your worldview (what I know of it), your style of posting, the kinds of arguments you make and your defensiveness are all strikingly similar to what we saw from Jan on this forum. It's quite a startling level of similarity, which is what I find remarkable. Maybe you have a long lost brother or a soul mate. I reckon if you two blokes got together, the two of you would really hit it off. It's like you're on the same wavelength.

It’s not about me James..

You're not a believer who is posting in this thread to prove that his God isn't just fiction?

Okay. If you say so.

Why are you posting in this thread, then?

It is you and other atheists on here who are being asked about evidence that would make you believe God is a reality. And what is it about God that makes you think there is no evidence.

That's not at all what the topic of this thread is, Trek. Perhaps you should start a new thread on your preferred topic.

 

[foghorn]

I think I've been clear. Your worldview (what I know of it), your style of posting, the kinds of arguments you make and your defensiveness are all strikingly similar to what we saw from Jan on this forum. It's quite a startling level of similarity, which is what I find remarkable. Maybe you have a long lost brother or a soul mate. I reckon if you two blokes got together, the two of you would really hit it off. It's like you're on the same wavelength.

And don't forget the spelling and avatars...
Two ii’s in “ no brainier” for Trek and Jan Ardena. My bold below.

It’s a no brainier for me,

For me it was a no-brainier when he stated…

It’s a no brainier.He’s an…

And both having avatar pictures produced by sound vibrations:

 

[Trek]

And don't forget the spelling and avatars...
Two ii’s in “ no brainier” for Trek and Jan Ardena. My bold below.






And both having avatar pictures produced by sound vibrations:
View attachment 6242

So are you saying I am Jan Ardena?

 

[Sarkus]

Ok. What does it mean to have “positive belief” in God, as opposed to a basic belief in God?

A "positive belief" about X is a belief about some property of X. E.g. "I believe God exists" is a belief about the property of existence as it relates to God. Similarly "I believe God does not exist" is also a belief about the property of existence as it applies to God.
Compare that to "I lack belief that God exists". This is not a positive belief. It is a statement about the absence of any positive belief.

You have basically said that if one does not belief that God exists, it is sufficient to use the label “atheist”.
Correct because one cannot believe in a thing, concept, or ideaology if they are unknown to them. In the same breath said person cannot argue for or against something that is unknown to them.

Yes, but bear in mind that people who believe that God does not exist are a subset of people that do not have the belief that God exists.
Both are atheists, as long (in my view, at least) they have considered the matter of "God exists", even if they subsequently conclude that God is unknown to them.

Just because one does not give God any thought does not mean that person has no knowledge or understanding of God.

Sure. So what?
There may be many reasons why one does not give God any thought, and some of those will be the lack of knowledge and/or understanding.

Concluding that one is atheist or theist does not make one an atheist or theist.

Sure, people can be mistaken - or lie.
But usually one's conclusion on such matters comes after considering the matter. If one concludes that they lack belief that God exists, presumably they do so because they lack belief that God exists.
Usually, however, because we don't know what the person is thinking, or how they think, a good starting point is to take their word for it, until such time as they demonstrate otherwise.

The designation is already there whether you decide or not. One can however decide to move away from the designation over time. It’s not different to getting over breaking up with someone you love, and having to move on. Or when someone close to you dies. Eventually you will get over it and move on.

The label is there, sure. But the actual existence or meaningfulness of what that label references is what people consider and conclude upon. One can not simply define something into existence, for example.
If you want to get more metaphysical, and claim God is existence itself, then you get into issues of pointlessness of the label, and meaninglessness.
Your example of the break up is to beg the question of God's existence, though. A fallacious analogy.

This is why we don’t start threads, or have debates about Gliptz. We have no idea of what one is so believing or not in the Gliptz, or believing or not that it exists is never expressed.

One could start a thread, and clearly define what is meant by Gliptz at the start, so that people are on the same page from the start. Others could then chip in and disagree with that definition.
To assume that everyone has the same understanding of "God" is to just ask for trouble, imo.

OTOH God has been expressed throughout history right up to the present. Because we have some knowledge and understanding of God. We couldn’t be atheist, agnostic, or theist, if we didn’t.

But do we all have the same understanding? No.

What is it about God that makes one an atheist?

It is the lack of belief that God exists. Just as one might lack the belief that you're wearing a hat. You may be. You may not be. At least in this example I know what a hat is, and I know what it is to wear a hat. But I have no reason to believe that you either are or are not wearing one - i.e. I hold no positive belief on the matter. You could convince me one way or the other with evidence, such as a photo. But otherwise I would lack reason to hold a positive belief either way.

With God you have the added issue of what is actually being referred to, and whether that even has any meaning - or is it a case of "what happened before time began"?
Those who believe in God (or believe God exists if you want to consider them separately) must necessarily believe they have sufficient understanding of what they are referring to with the term "God". They use the term with an understanding behind it. That is not to say their understanding is accurate, but they at least believe their understanding is sufficient. Who am I to say they are right or wrong.

If one does not accept evidences for God (google evidence for God), what reasons can you give for this non acceptance?

Provide some specifics, please, if you want to examine this further.
More generally, if a piece of evidence supports both the claim and the counter-claim equally then it is of no help in moving the dial toward one or the other.

What is it about the subject matter that make an agnostic believe that God as ultimate reality cannot be known?
What do they know about God (in the first place) to make that decision?

You'd have to ask each agnostic.
Me, I do not believe the true nature of reality, whether you want to call that God or not, can be known by those within it. Imagine you have no memory and you're inside a sealed room with no windows or doors. We can guess as to what is outside, sure. But that's all we'll ever do: guess.

Metaphysics is rife with unknowable, unprovable questions. We can pick and choose whichever philosophy we want from that, but in so far as they all explain the same things, how do you know which is correct?

What do you mean by (meaningful definition)?
Does an agnostic have any idea at all about God, or even the claims made about God?

You'd have to ask each agnostic.

Are you saying an agnostic does not know what is meant by the term “God”?

They will have differing ideas as to what is meant by the term.

But they don’t leave it there.
They will still argue about God.
If one has no idea of something, what are they arguing about?

They're not really arguing about God, but rather about why some people believe and others don't.
They're also countering the otherwise unchecked assertion that God exists, and all the personal baggage and agenda that each individual might want to ascribe to that belief. E.g. in the US there is one side of the political divide that wants to assert more religion and belief into people's lives. So it surely only proper to push back, right, if you don't have that same belief, let alone the agenda and baggage that those others are trying to push upon you.

I would neither believe or lack a belief.
How could I?
What would it be based on?

Either you have belief (whatever it is you believe), or you lack belief. There is no alternative.

Why is it?

Because life goes on exactly the same way irregardless of whether "God" is more than just a concept or not.
To me, that makes it a meaningless concept. Maybe "useless", or "pointless" would be a better term.
It is an added complexity that we can't know is necessary or not.

So what is God to you, as opposed to what is NOT God.

"God" is a label that many people use, and many people have different ideas about, to explain the question of "why do we exist?".

I think the whole Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign has been meaningless, but they and it exists. I can give reasons as to why I come to that conclusion and even bring up points to back my conclusion. But it seems to me that folks here want to denigrate God and theists without offering up explanations. This thread is a prime example of that, as are all the threads relating to God. Why is that?

You'd have to ask them.
Maybe don't take their bait, especially as you know what it is.

So why do you engage in discussions about God?

I'm interested more in why people think the way they do.

Do you ever engage in discussions about Gliptz?

Briefly, in one thread.

 

[Trek]

No but by all means start a thread on that and I will contribute.

Why?
The questions I ask is related to this thread, and is not a new thread subject matter. They are very simple, and you guys should easily answer them.
So this or any thread where atheists stipulate there is no evidence for God without explaining why you think there is no evidence/proof, and what would evidence would allow you to accept that God is real

 

[Trek]

A "positive belief" about X is a belief about some property of X. E.g. "I believe God exists" is a belief about the property of existence as it relates to God. Similarly "I believe God does not exist" is also a belief about the property of existence as it applies to God.

I get that.
But why use “positive” to express belief?
It’s no biggie.

Compare that to "I lack belief that God exists". This is not a positive belief. It is a statement about the absence of any positive belief.

Firstly “lack” is not a fixed position. It doesn’t mean you are “without”. It has a sliding scale.
So you must personally know and understand what a lack of belief means to you (not you personally).

To “understand” means there is an intended meaning of the words you use to describe your position. So I would agree that for most atheists (if not all) a lack of belief in God means without a belief in God, and while you may not holds “positive belief in your atheism, you hold a belief in the reasons for your atheism. A theist also believes in the reasons for their theism. It is the reason we hold why we are theist or atheist

Yes, but bear in mind that people who believe that God does not exist are a subset of people that do not have the belief that God exists.

What is the status with regards to God on the latter of the two?
Do you think being ignorant of God makes one an atheist? Are animals atheists?

Both are atheists, as long (in my view, at least) they have considered the matter of "God exists", even if they subsequently conclude that God is unknown to them.

It can be that both are atheist. Definitely the former would be designated atheist. But the latter is not so simple in my opinion. For example the guys name who lives in the house at the end of my street is unknown to me, but it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one. God can be unknown to me, but it doesn’t necessarily default to atheism. I still have to make my mind up if asked.
And that’s where belief formulates. So both sides have belief, but one sides belief develops into atheism and the other, theism.


Another thing, because God is unknown to you doesn’t mean you are an atheist. You could just as well be a theist, because God is not known fully to anyone. To be an atheist one has knowledge their atheism meaning they have to give reason for it, and like I said before the belief evolves through reason, knowledge and understanding of God, even if you are modelling your reason off theists testimony.
Hence my questions for atheists

Sure. So what?
There may be many reasons why one does not give God any thought, and some of those will be the lack of knowledge and/or understanding.

Agreed!
I’d like to add that ultimately we are all lacking in knowledge and understand in varying degrees.

Sure, people can be mistaken - or lie.
But usually one's conclusion on such matters comes after considering the matter.

It could be a surface belief, not necessarily mistaken, or a lie. But based on a superficial understanding. A lot of religious people maybe had what they thought was a belief in God, only to find out that they didn’t have a belief, and become atheist later. I wouldn’t regard them as mistaken, or lying.

If one concludes that they lack belief that God exists, presumably they do so because they lack belief that God exists.

What do they base their conclusion on?
That is what I’m interested in.

Usually, however, because we don't know what the person is thinking, or how they think, a good starting point is to take their word for it, until such time as they demonstrate otherwise.

I agree.
But when they start asserting stuff like they do in this forum, about God, theism, theists, and religion. Then they should be required to explain their position if asked. To not do so implies their position is either correct, or the standard default, which should be discussed if asked

The label is there, sure. But the actual existence or meaningfulness of what that label references is what people consider and conclude upon. One can not simply define something into existence, for example.
If you want to get more metaphysical, and claim God is existence itself, then you get into issues of pointlessness of the label, and meaninglessness.
Your example of the break up is to beg the question of God's existence, though. A fallacious analogy.

I agree that defining things into existences leads to nowhere. But that’s what we are here to discuss, and to see whether or not God is real, or the possibility of God is real. It is as if the atheists on here, while asking for evidence of God, doesn’t want actually discuss the evidence no matter if it is perceived as weak, or where it comes from. It seems they only want to justify their own position by shooting everything down, even though they cannot even explain what it is they don’t believe in, or why they don’t believe, outside the now boring standard of there is no evidence. That says nothing about anything.
Do you agree?

One could start a thread, and clearly define what is meant by Gliptz at the start, so that people are on the same page from the start. Others could then chip in and disagree with that definition.

I think that would be a short lived thread. I doubt you’d get the constant “what’s the evidence it exists” more than a couple of times. The reason being nobody would give a shit. The same can’t be said for God. Atheists (some) like to give the excuse that they live in a world where people accept God as real, and this has an impact in their life. For the majority of atheists, I call bull crap on that. I know a ton of atheists who are not at all into God or religion. They just want to bash them. This thread, my warnings, and my bans are a testament to that.

To assume that everyone has the same understanding of "God" is to just ask for trouble, imo.

Why?
There is only one God.
But in a sense you’re right, because there are many aspects to God, and Gods nature. This one can understand the more one studies the scripture (bible for me).

But do we all have the same understanding? No.

That applies to everything, even science.
That is why we can use tools like logic to reign in the discipline and not get too fanciful.

It is the lack of belief that God exists. Just as one might lack the belief that you're wearing a hat. You may be. You may not be. At least in this example I know what a hat is, and I know what it is to wear a hat.

I’m not sure if you’re designation, but if you were atheist and you don’t what God is, at some level of understanding that theists have, then it begs the question what is it you lack a belief in.

But I have no reason to believe that you either are or are not wearing one - i.e. I hold no positive belief on the matter.

Belief is not necessary because you understand that he may or may not be wearing a hat. Both situation are possible. End of.

With God you have the added issue of what is actually being referred to, and whether that even has any meaning - or is it a case of "what happened before time began"?

Why wouldn’t it have meaning?
Do you think people just go around talking about a word, and end up believing that word? No I don’t thinks so.

If time did begin, then how do you come to conclude meaninglessness that it was not preceded by some agency that is not subject to time?

Those who believe in God (or believe God exists if you want to consider them separately) must necessarily believe they have sufficient understanding of what they are referring to with the term "God". They use the term with an understanding behind it.

The same applies to those who don’t believe in God, or believe God exists. Sufficient understand has to be present in all belief.
Atheists believe there is no evidence for God.
Therefore they must know to some extent what is God, and what evidence of God should look like. If they don’t again it begs the question what are they talking about

That is not to say their understanding is accurate, but they at least believe their understanding is sufficient. Who am I to say they are right or wrong.

Agreed.

Don’t respond just yet as there is more to come

…

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But what makes you think God is fictional?

What makes you think the tooth fairy is fictional?

 

[Trek]

What makes you think the tooth fairy is fictional?

I said what I said. Wander off into the Tugley Wood if you wish to start a thread on what I MEANT so say.

That’s what I said. You said proof, and I responded to that. I said no one can prove anything so the question is null and void.

I read your post responding to my questions.
Thanks for that. And for showing how simple it is.
You believe that God does not exist. So for you God is but a word that people respond to.

But why post this thread because nothing anybody says is going to persuade you.
Were you just trolling?
Because you can!

 

[Trek]

What makes you think the tooth fairy is fictional?

Good question.
They seem fictional to me because they were always told in a child/kiddie light.
It was always in the same kind of category as Paddington Bear, or Otta The Goldfish.
It never seemed serious because grown ups never talked about them. Their primary purpose was to leave money for a tooth. But I never got any money so I wasn’t bothered.
When I was a young boy all things kiddie was never taken seriously, then as we grew up we naturally went on to more mature shows. We used to be scared shitlless watching Christopher Lee in the Dracula movies. But we always knew that it was designed to makes us scared, and comedies were designed to make us laugh.

My point is I never thought of things in terms of fiction and non fiction, we just knew instinctively that stuff was made up.
Which is why I am interested to know why you would think that God, in spite of your strong atheism, could be fiction. What did you base that conclusion on?