Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

[Trek]

I guess as long as we're lumping everyone under one label...

atheist -
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"

Ok…

If you believe in God, you are a fire-and-brimstone-touting whackadoodle Bible-thumper.

Really…
This is your response.
Jim Jones the atheist who lead that death cult in the Guyana preached fire and brimstone, as does a plethora of preachers who do not believe in God

You're OK if we refer to you as that from now on, yes? Good, good.

It will just be another diversion tactic.

 

[Trek]

double

 

[Trek]

No. If the question is unknowable to me but I still think there is no god then I am an agnostic atheist.

But still an atheist. Yes?

You are asking me to demonstrate a negative, I have not seen any evidence of the supernatural, ever. No gods, goddesses, ghosts or hint of a devil heaven or hell

I am aware of that.
But how do you know you have not seen any evidence of God?

 

[Trek]

Still got it backwards. Still too chicken to have the courage of your convictions.

Why do you always refrain from answering real questions?
What are you afraid of?

 

[DaveC426913]

Jim Jones the atheist who lead that death cult in the Guyana preached fire and brimstone, as does a plethora of preachers who do not believe in God

Yup. you're all the same, right Bible-thumper?

It will just be another diversion tactic.

The diversion tactic is yours. You try to deflect actual dialogue by using labels and attacking the labels.
That's dishonest.


Might I suggest, if you want to be taken seriously, you drop the labels and address the arguments?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you always refrain from answering real questions?

You look foolish continuing to hammer on this entirely backwards argument.

You have been asked to provide evidence for the objective existence of God (see thread title). It is you who are in the position of answering the questions put to you, and you are simply dodging. You lack the courage of your convictions.

And it is abundantly clear, after several times around, that you will not be demonstrating that god exists outside your own head.

And that's fine. We agree on that.

 

[DaveC426913]

But how do you know you have not seen any evidence of God?

For the zillionth time, feel free to enlighten us. Point to this evidence and say "You saw this thing but did not think it was evidence of God."

But you won't.

 

[Trek]

Yup. you're all the same, right Bible-thumper?

What do we do that makes us all the same?
Last I heard a theist was somebody who believes in God. Not read or thump the bible

The diversion tactic is yours. You try to deflect actual dialogue by using labels and attacking the labels.
That's dishonest.

That is a false claim.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Put another way… if you lack, or are without, or point blank refuse to, believe in a God, You are atheist. You agreed with me in that.
So how am I attacking anyone? Or being dishonest. Serious questions

 

[foghorn]

What do we do that makes us all the same?
Last I heard a theist was somebody who believes in God. Not read or thump the bible

That is a false claim.
An atheist is a person who does not believe in God. Put another way… if you lack, or are without, or point blank refuse to, believe in a God, You are atheist. You agreed with me in that.
So how am I attacking anyone? Or being dishonest. Serious questions

The title of the thread is...​

“Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).”​

STOP your diversionary merry-go-round of definitions of atheist and theists.
Reported for diversion of thread.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Problem is cowardice. Believers are afraid they'll come to their senses.

 

[Trek]

The title of the thread is...​

“Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).”​

STOP your diversionary merry-go-round of definitions of atheist and theists.
Reported for diversion of thread.

I think it is obvious that no one can prove such a thing. And that’s the point of the thread.
But so what! That is the next question. Now the author of the thread should give accountability for why he posted such a open and shut case thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

atheist -
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

That is fine. For a long while there, you made no distinction between those who believe god does not exist and these who don't believe he does exist. Those are two very different things. It my not be an important distinction to you, but it results in flawed logic when you go to discuss it.

One cannot prove a negative. It is impossible for anyone to try to prove that god does not exist. Any atheist that tries to so is going to run into trouble.

What most atheists do - I being one of them - is simply not be convinced of things unless they are convincing. This the rational way all humans work, you included. You would not simply take my word that unicorns exist, you would want evidence.

And, were to produce a spirally horn from my pocket and say 'there is your evidence', you would likely say 'that evidence is not convincing; spirally horns have many mundane explanations.'

And were I to say 'Just be honest with yourself. Why are you in denial of unicorns?', you would (rightfully) look at me like I'm an idiot.

And were I to say 'Your entire world view is invalid because you come from the stance of someone with a non-belief in unicorns', you would probably stop talking to me at that point.

It seems pretty silly when I say it out loud, doesn't it?


I have never seen anything that requires a supernatural explanation. Unless someone wants to step forward and show me something new, I have no reason to suppose a god of any description exists. No one has stepped forward. No one has een been able to define this thing they believe in.

Including you. It's amusing how you project your own doubt: you declare I am dishonest because I don't believe in something I can't describe. Yet you believe in something you can't even describe yourself. You can't even describe what you believe. You're not dishonest with me; you're dishonest with yourself.

But thats OK. Beliefs don't have to be rational. And it's beside the point.

The point is in thread title. So far, no believer here has been able to defend their belief (whatever flavour of belief they prefer) in a god.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it is obvious that no one can prove such a thing. And that’s the point of the thread.
But so what! That is the next question. Now the author of the thread should give accountability for why he posted such a open and shut case thread.

Thank you for your honesty.

On this we agree. I think the existence of the thread is needlessly antagonistic - on the verge of religion-bashing for its own sake. I respect people regardless of their beliefs. Where they get into trouble is when they start asserting it everywhere. It begs push-back.



What surprises me is that you believer(s) took the bait. It was't a question that needed you to weigh in on; you would have done better to just chalk it up as a lure to enage you in bad faith.

But you did take the bait. And you put forth the very flawed arguments that are trivially dismantleable. Sorry about you luck there. You would do better to engage in a discussion whose premise if that of good faith, and this one wasn't.

 

[billvon]

So you believe in God?

Yep. I think there is something we would call a god out there. Pretty much a guarantee that it is nothing like what the various holy books describe, though.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't guarantee anything. Cthulhu be with you.

 

[Trek]

That is fine. For a long while there, you made no distinction between those who believe god does not exist and these who don't believe he does exist. Those are two very different things. It may not be an important distinction to you, but it results in flawed logic when you go to discuss it.

Both sides of the same coin. And they both use a ‘lack of evidence’ as a reason for their positions, then there is no real distinction. Because ultimately they believe the same thing but use different approaches. I am not interested that you are an atheist, I am only interested in why you are atheist.

What most atheists do - I being one of them - is simply not be convinced of things unless they are convincing. This the rational way all humans work, you included. You would not simply take my word that unicorns exist, you would want evidence.

Being convinced of something your satisfaction.
That is anything but rational. This thread idea is not rational. It is entirely irrational.
I don’t care about whether or not unicorns exist so why bring them up. Let’s keep the topic on God.

It seems pretty silly when I say it out loud, doesn't it?

That’s because it is pretty silly.
Let’s keep the topic on God, and what you think God is why you need specific types of evidence. That’s far more interesting.
Don’t you think?

 

[Trek]

I have never seen anything that requires a supernatural explanation.

So what?

Unless someone wants to step forward and show me something new, I have no reason to suppose a god of any description exists.

That’s ok.
So why do you spend years of your life talking about something that is as illusion to yourself as a unicorn. You people in here seem to be obsessed with not only talking about God, but throw temper tantrums, throwing out reports, and banning people who simply show how silly your understanding of God be is.

No one has stepped forward. No one has een been able to define this thing they believe in.

We define God all the the time, what are you talking about. At least talk about God from one of those perspectives and we’ll have a better class of conversation.
Just google. Here are basic definitions from wiki..

God - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DaveC426913]

Both sides of the same coin. And they both use a ‘lack of evidence’ as a reason for their positions, then there is no real distinction. Because ultimately they believe the same thing but use different approaches. I am not interested that you are an atheist, I am only interested in why you are atheist.

OK, so I was right the first time. You make no distinction.

Likewise, you'll agree that you and fire-and-brimstone Bible-thumpers are two sides the of same coin.

Or perhaps you'd rather drop the strawmen?

Being convinced of something your satisfaction.
That is anything but rational.

This is an indefensible - and frankly, kooky - assertion. It can be dismissed outight.

This thread idea is not rational. It is entirely irrational.

Nevertheless, you have engaged in it, so you accept its terms.

I don’t care about whether or not unicorns exist so why bring them up. Let’s keep the topic on God.

You are unable to think rationally about God. I am employing an analogy to help you see some logic without triggering your pre-existing belief in the conclusion.

It is an analogy wherein you are put in the position of wanting evidence for something you do not believe in - which is precisely what you have been harping on about. That is a perfectly valid debate technique.

If your stance here were rational, you would not need to shy away from a valid, neutral analogy.

That’s because it is pretty silly.

Yes it is. I'm glad you see that. That is a huge admission on your part.

That's three times now you've conceded.

I'd say this thread is done.

 

[DaveC426913]

So why do you spend years of your life talking about something that is as illusion to yourself as a unicorn.

The same reason I spend time arguing about crime, corruption, poverty, and a host of other issues with the world.

You people in here seem to be obsessed with not only talking about God,

You didn't have to engage. But you did.
This wasn't your thread; nobody hijacked your conversation. You came here of you own free will.

but throw temper tantrums, throwing out reports, and banning people who simply show how silly your understanding of God be is.

Defending Jan now, are we?

We define God all the the time, what are you talking about. At least talk about God from one of those perspectives and we’ll have a better class of conversation.
Just google. Here are basic definitions from wiki..

"We"? Wiki is not here. You are.

So, is that how you define God? Is that the God you are defending here?
Are you comfortable with us lifting anything from Wikipedia we see fit to challenge you on?

Or perhaps, more-to-the-point: when you asked what evidence I was looking for of God, if I had said "Oh, the one Wiki lists", would you have accepted that , and you would defend that in good faith?

At least talk about God from one of those perspectives and we’ll have a better class of conversation.

The only God to be debated is yours. Wiki isn't here to defend itself. What is your definition of God?


You now, Jan tried this exact same dodge many years ago. He simply could not describe the very thing he believed in. It doesn't matter whether you are Jan, you are a clone of him.

In fact, I think I may take a page out of your book with the one-label thing. I'm just going to refer to (what was it you said?) "you people" as you Jans. I'm sure you're OK with that.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Thumpers" works too.