Theist tries to tell atheists what they believe

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

OK, so I was right the first time. You make no distinction.
An atheist is an atheist, and I’ve given definitions at least twice.
I’m only interested in why you are an atheist.
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?
It’s a poor analogy.
You have admitted to being an atheist.
I haven’t quoted any scriptures, or damned you all to hell for being an atheist.
This is an indefensible - and frankly, kooky - assertion. It can be dismissed outight.
Why? You are literally using your own standard to decide if something is convincing or not. Especially with regard to God. This thread is a perfect example of that.
Nevertheless, you have engaged in it, so you accept its terms.
There are no terms. That’s the point.
The question it poses is entirely silly.
He should know that nothing can really be proven outside of mathematics.
He or any of you people should elaborate on what he means by his question. It is an atheist mindset that produces these types of dialogue.
They do this purely to give justification to their belief. They believe that there is no evidence for God, because they/you are literally incapable of understanding God while you are atheist.
Go and see some ex atheist give a reason why they switched.
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.
You don’t know any of that.
It is all guess work.
It’s like a man without sight trying to explain to a person with sight what the person with sight is actually seeing.
Yes it is. I'm glad you see that. That is a huge admission on your part.
What makes you think belief in God requires the same standard of evidence as that of believing unicorns exist.
I don’t care about unicorns.
But if they did exist we would be able to see the evidence.
What evidence do you think belief in God requires? That’s what I want to know.
That's three times now you've conceded.
I'd say this thread is done.
This is you peoples problem.
You’re only interested in being seen to win so you can feel good about yourselves.
This thread exemplifies that.
Now a theist is holding your feet to the fire by asking real questions it has become very apparent
 
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.

Well it would be nice to know why people believe despite all evidence to the contrary.

Also some of us are concerned with religion encroaching into our live where we do not want or need it, teaching garbage in the science class, teaching religion as historical fact, being told we cannot be moral without it, sticking its nose into women's rights and sexuality.

Oh yes we are not keen on people flying planets into building too.
 
Quantum Mechanics has ruthlessly enforced its beliefs by exacting an unflinching belief in its dogma in its followers
What? Not the topic of the thread- at all.

Also QM has not done anything regarding belief, it just is. Physicists, the people who actually know what they are talking about, worked it all out in the 1920s and demonstrated it to be true.

We still use some of those equations, and theories today although things have progressed in the last 100 years.
 
I’m only interested in why you are an atheist.
You should start a thread on that. That would put you in the asking position, instead of the answering position.

This thread challenges you, as a Jan, to produce evidence of God. That's all we care about here.

You have acknowledged, explicitly, that you can't, three times now.

That's enough for me to put the issue to bed until the next Jan pops up, claiming they have God in their heart of hearts.
 
The same reason I spend time arguing about crime, corruption, poverty, and a host of other issues with the world.
God doesn’t affect you because as far as you’re concerned there is no God.
But those issues you mentioned affect every body. So your reason for being obsessed with God makes no sense. Try again. This time be honest
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.
So what?
The thread starter should explain his reason for why he thinks this thread is relevant to theists.
Because it obviously isn’t.
This is supposed to be the “intelligent community”. I suggest you folks live up to it
Defending Jan now, are we?
Huh?
I’m making a point
"We"? Wiki is not here. You are.
Why don’t you verse yourself on definitions of God before entering a discussion. At least the rhetoric will stay in the proper lane instead of talking about unicorns and the like.
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?


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.

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?



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


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


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.


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.
P
I'd say this thread is done.
 
God doesn’t affect you because as far as you’re concerned there is no God.
Like poverty, corruption and crime, God affects other people that inhabit the world I live in. And they affect me.

This is pretty basic social interaction. You do know what social interaction is, right?

So your reason for being obsessed with God makes no sense.
I am OK with it making no sense to you.

You do after all, believe you have a(n unevidenced) god living in your head, so it's not surprising that a lot of normal things don't make sense to you. Like, say, social interaction?

The thread starter should explain his reason for why he thinks this thread is relevant to theists.
He has no such obligation.

Nor is there a need: it sorts itself out automatically: Those who feel the thread relevant to them will participate, and those who don't feel it's relevant will not.

By your participation, you have indicated that it is relevant to you.

Why don’t you verse yourself on definitions of God before entering a discussion.
I have plenty of definitions of God.

The only one that really matters is your definition of God, since it is the only one here that can potentially have a champion in its corner here in this thread.

But it is becoming increasingly apparent that you don't have one. Or worse, you simply lack the courage to stand behind it.

At least the rhetoric will stay in the proper lane instead of talking about unicorns and the like.
If you are inacapable of grasping analogies, you won't get very far in a discsusson about abstracts.

But I think you are capable of grasping analogies; I suspect you are avoiding it because you know it skewers the hypocrisy of your position.
You demand evidence before believing in unicorns, but you do not demand evidence before believing in God. Your avoidance of this speaks louder than your involvement.



Regardless, this is all post mortem. Thrice you've acknowledged you have no way of determining God lives anywhere but in your head, let alone anywhere in the material world. That pretty much puts the nail in the coffin - see thread title.
 
Like poverty, corruption and crime, God affects other people that inhabit the world I live in. And they affect me.
How does God affect you?
I am OK with it making no sense to you.
At least you acknowledge you are obsessed with God.
You do after all, believe you have a(n unevidenced) god living in your head, so it's not surprising that a lot of normal things don't make sense to you. Like, say, social interaction?
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about?
What do you mean by “god”?
He has no such obligation.

Nor is there a need: it sorts itself out automatically: Those who feel the thread relevant to them will participate, and those who don't feel it's relevant will not.
He does.
Nothing can be proven outside of mathematics.
So the answer to his thread question is obviously no. But what does he mean by “god and gods”?
And why stop at theists!
Everybody is capable of creating fiction.
We live in a world where fiction is the order of the day. I would like to dig deeper and gain some understanding of what is being got at here.
Why does does he think that God is, or could be fictional?
I have plenty of definitions of God.
So why not use your definitions instead of unicorns which has no relationship, or even in the same category as God. It would make for a better discussion. Than these atheist cheap shots. It’s like you’re afraid to have a real discussion.
The only one that really matters is your definition of God, since it is the only one here that can potentially have a champion in its corner here in this thread.
The word “God” is the definition not the name.
You do know what the definition of God is, that is why you are in denial of God. That is evidenced by you pretending to equate unicorns, and asking me about god only being in my head.
You do that on purpose to stop yourself from discussing God properly.
But it is becoming increasingly apparent that you don't have one. Or worse, you simply lack the courage to stand behind it.
I literally just gave you a link with basic definitions of God.
Choose one from there.
They are all more in line with the subject of God
If you are inacapable of grasping analogies, you won't get very far in a discsusson about abstracts.
Your analogies are in wrong category.
That is why we should get a good understanding of what is meant by God.
That is if you really are interested in a discussion.
But I think you are capable of grasping analogies; I suspect you are avoiding it because you know it skewers the hypocrisy of your position.
Here you your dishonesty horns are showing.
You already have a concept of God, but it is not the God of theists. You’re not really interested in discussion.
You demand evidence before believing in unicorns, but you do not demand evidence before believing in God. Your avoidance of this speaks louder than your involvement.
Again, based on this “analogy” I don’t know what you mean by “God”.
What makes you think you need the same type of evidence to believe in God?
This only shows you are treating the concept of God the same way you treat physical/potentially physical objects. Why do you do that? What makes you think theists understand God in this way?
Thrice you've acknowledged you have no way of determining God lives anywhere but in your head, let alone anywhere in the material world. That pretty much puts the nail in the coffin - see thread title.
I’ve read the thread title and obviously I can’t prove anything outside of mathematics. So I’m now interested in the idea behind the challenge, because being the “intelligent community” I thought maybe we extend the discussion.
Whaddya reckon? :D
 
Biochemistry isn't magic, it's a result of education. I can understand why some folks believe it is magic, but I don't let them into my house.
So you believe that Lysosomes, Centrioles, Microtubules, Golgi Apparatus, Smooth endoplasmic reticulums, Mitochondrion’s, Rough endoplasmic recticulums, Cell membranes, Nuclei, Chromatims, Ribosomes, all just happened to form in goo. Now we have all of life.
And you think you can justify it by throwing out the term biochemist.
You really don’t think that’s magical?
 
So you believe that Lysosomes, Centrioles, Microtubules, Golgi Apparatus, Smooth endoplasmic reticulums, Mitochondrion’s, Rough endoplasmic recticulums, Cell membranes, Nuclei, Chromatims, Ribosomes, all just happened to form in goo. Now we have all of life.
And you think you can justify it by throwing out the term biochemist.
You really don’t think that’s magical?
Magic is an excuse for not thinking. I don't believe in magic or gods or Tralfamadorians.
 
So you believe that Lysosomes, Centrioles, Microtubules, Golgi Apparatus, Smooth endoplasmic reticulums, Mitochondrion’s, Rough endoplasmic recticulums, Cell membranes, Nuclei, Chromatims, Ribosomes, all just happened to form in goo.
No. Stop misrepresenting science with stupid comments, no one in the scientific community speaks like this.
 
Trek:
Either God is real or God isn’t real.
That really all there is.
There's also the matter of evidence, which we discussed. Either there is evidence that God is real, or there isn't.

You've been asked many times now whether you've seen any evidence that God is real. Each time you've been asked, you've failed to come up with anything. In fact, most of the time it looks like you're trying to avoid the question. "I don't need your evidence, Bud!" seems to be your attitude.

Well fine, Trek. It's great that you're willing to believe something without any evidence... I guess. (Or is it?)

You and I are not the same, in that regard.

If you have no evidence, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole God thing.

Coming back to the title of the thread, the challenge was to "prove you god or gods aren't just fiction". Why are you posting in such a thread, if you have no answer to that challenge?
I get that we can intellectually decide we are “undecided”, or “decided”, but the reality is, there is no connection other than to our own understanding. And that understanding is determined by which camp we decide to attach ourselves to.
It's almost uncanny how closely your arguments, poor as they are, match those of Jan Ardena. You said you've read some of the threads in which he posted. You might save yourself some time by reviewing how I (along with other people) demolished his weak arguments in those threads. Don't repeat his errors.

Anyway, back on topic. You have it backwards, just like Jan used to get things backwards. The "camp we decide to attach ourselves to" is, for most of us, determined by our understandings and beliefs. The understandings and beliefs come first, then the choice of "camp".

It doesn't make any intellectual sense to randomly choose a "camp" and then go looking only for those "understandings" that support the position we've randomly chosen to commit to, for no good reason. That kind of approach is intellectually vacuous and backwards.

When it comes to religion, let me give you an example. I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child. My "understandings" of God and Christ were derived from what I was taught in church, in school and in Sunday school. Later, my "understandings" were supplemented by what I learned from the bible. I fell into the "camp" of Christianity almost by default. I didn't know any better, for a long time. But eventually, I found out about critical thinking, science, scholarship, skepticism, and more. I gained some new "understandings" that challenged my existing "understandings". And then, later still, I "attached myself" to a new "camp". My mind had been literally changed. I realised that, although I had thought at one time that I had good reasons for believing God was real, I was wrong. I shouldn't have been so easily convinced that God was real. I realised that my God belief was not built on solid ground. So, I took the intellectually honest approach and made an informed choice to move "God" into my list of many "not established" notions.

When you come to a more appropriate understanding of evidence and the like, I hope you'll have the intellectual integrity to join me in my much more sensible "camp", Trek. (Bonus: it's also a lot more fun. No need to worry about eternal punishment, the capricious whims of a malicious deity and such. Or, at least, to postpone such worries unless and until they become supported by evidence.)

If there is no connection, there is no God. It’s very subtle. That is why God cannot be grasped by the atheist.
Don't kid yourself, Trek. There's nothing subtle about that.

You feel that there's a God in your heart. Okay. Lots of people feel like you do. I understand it. I used to kid myself that I felt it too, when I was Christian. At the time, I was quite sincere, I assure you; I had no idea I was fooling myself. But I was a kid. I don't know what your excuse is, here and now. You're an adult.

Also, don't fool yourself that atheists can't grasp the idea of your special "connection" with God. I've been exactly where you are, with exactly the same special connection to God in my head that you believe you have. I understand. I sympathise. You're stuck, for now. But you can fix that. All you have to do is to be a little more honest with yourself. I know that, for some people, it can be very scary, though. Maybe you're one of those people. Maybe you need your God. If so, it's all good. You do you.
The atheist has to stop being an atheist, because that mindset is the very thing that creates the barrier.
Stating the bleeding obvious there, Trek.

The belief that Trump will win the election is the very mindset that creates the barrier to believing that Harris will win. The belief that raspberry is tastier than strawberry is the mindset that creates the barrier to stopping being a raspberry fancier. The Trump voter has to stop being a Trump voter in order to accept that Harris is the preferable candidate.

Thanks for letting us in on the secret, Captain Obvious.
It’s the difference between looking through a murky glass, and looking through the same glass wiped clean.
Interesting. Tell me, Trek. Do you view atheists as being "unclean", in some kind of moral sense? Do you think it's possible that this sort of revulsion could have been indoctrinated into you? Think about it. Take some time. What have your religious leaders told you about atheists, over the years? Could they be wrong (about this or about anything)?
Theres nothing to share plus it’s not a greater knowledge in the sense of academic knowledge.
Then we are in agreement. I didn't expect you would have anything useful to share on this topic.

Why are you posting in this thread? It appears you have no interest in making any argument for believing in your God.
You need to stop your atheist mindset if you want to make a connection. It’s all you.
What kind of connection do you have with your God, Trek? Explain, please. Also, can you tell me how you know your connection is real and not just in your head?
What I see is a bunch of people trying to use their intellect to put up a barrier because you are in denial of God.
What I see is somebody who isn't being honest with himself. You're running away from all the hard questions because you're afraid of the answers you might find.
The best people for you to learn from is former atheists who like y’all used their intellect to create barriers, but become barrier free and now have a connection with their Spiritual Father.
There really are very few of those, you know. Most of the traffic, these days, is going in the other direction. It's the atheists breaking down the barriers, although "intellect" isn't usually the most prominent issue when it comes to "deconversion".
ive been reading some of [Jan Ardena's] posts. I like a lot of what he said when he talked about God. Jan isn’t unique in that kind of thinking.
Jan was unusual in that he imagined that he could just know things. He was very captured by magical thinking. Like you seem to, he imagined that God sort of magically connected into his brain and that was how he could be 100% confident that God was real. He thought that atheists lacked the special God-detection brain cells that he had, or else somehow managed to turn them off or ignore their magical signals. Actually, now that I think about it, Jan thought that atheism was an enormously powerful idea - powerful enough to override direct communication from his God, apparently. It would be interesting to talk to him again to find out why he thought that atheism was so powerful.

What do you think?
 
Back
Top