Discussion in 'Religion' started by Ted Grant II, Oct 9, 2017.
No. That's because I'm a theist.
You see God as a human invention because you are atheist.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The same could asked of gravity.
The Original Cause of All Causes, which is couched nicely in "God Is", is.
You are wishing it was that simple. Aren't you?
You are an atheist who expresses his atheism. Sometimes it comes across as though atheism is some kind of virtue. How can you think, or express anything more than atheism.
In the same breath how can I think or express, any thing more than theism.
As an expressive atheist, you are bound to say something like that.
Let's see you try and talk about God, from a non-atheist. perspective.
I'm confused, Jan.
You seem here to suggest that one would be in denial of God if God "left obvious evidence to the point where you would have no excuse for suppression", and because you assert that DaveC, and presumably others, are in denial and reject God, you must think that God has left obvious evidence to the point where they have no excuse for suppression, right?
And yet you criticise those same people for asking you to put forth that very same evidence.
I just don't get it, Jan.
You suggest there is "obvious evidence" yet you not only wont provide any for consideration, you also argue that it is even wrong to do so.
Which is it?
Are they just to believe that there is obvious evidence?
Are they just to take your word for it?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm an atheist and I don't see God as a human invention.
I see God as possibly a human invention, and possibly as what Is.
Yet because I do not hold the belief that God Is/exists, I am still atheist.
So please can you not lump all atheists into your rather narrow view of what an atheist is.
Potential = God (sans motivated emotions)
God is your "word" for Pure Potential as described by David Bohm in his "Wholeness and the Implicate order"
I believe strongly in the word Potential, because the definition of Potential is ; "That which may become reality"
You see, Potential covers all that God covers, except it is an implacable force, created from geometric tensors and mathematical laws. It meets scientific rigor, not some vague indescribable being which existed before the creation of this universe.
You are the one who is lumping all prior gods (which haveall been disproven) into One, because that's all that's left of mythology.
Can you do better?
We can observe it and translate it into mathematical equations. Gravity exists. Can you do the same for God?
Is it gravity or God which keeps the earth in orbit around the sun?
How do you observe gravity?
See, you can't even talk about God from a non-atheist perspective. Why?
Because atheism is a part of your nature.
Dave does. That's who I was referring to.
Why don't you hold the belief?
I've lumped all atheists as people who do not believe in God.
Am I wrong?
If so, why?
Are you referring to my take on the Bible verses?
To me, the evidence for God, is stronger, than the so called evidence for no God.
But you have to consult the Bible to know more about my response to Dave, or, Write4U.
For an atheist, for whom there is no God, evidence can be one way to jog the memory of an atheist, into rembering God. But there is no evidence that can change a mind outside of the person's acceptance of God.
They can work stuff out for themselves.
Evidence doesn't make any difference. Even the Bible verse I messed with, says so. It's quite obvious.
Can you speak from a woman's perspective? No, because you're a man, unless you were transgender.
Atheism is the default position. You make the claim, the burden of proof rests on you. Until then you have no standing.
It is the believer who needs to justify his/her belief.
It's the same as asking me to speak from a murderer's perspective. I can't because I am not a murderer. Should I confess to a murder, I have not committed?
Your assertion that I should be able to speak from a theist perspective is trolling.
Can you speak from an atheist perspective?
Let's start with that.
Let's assume you are an atheist and have recently been converted. What is it that made you convert?
It is for an atheist.
What claim? That I'm a theist?
I have to prove that theism is the default position?
And you don't have to prove atheism is the default position?
You made the claim, now back it up.
Who do you justify your non belief to?
I know you can't, which is my point.
Again, this is my point.
I suddenly woke up to the fact that I have been denying, and rejecting God, for my entire life. And when I think about it, I had not one good reason to do so.
No that's not how it works. If I say the FSM created the universe, you would insist I that I define how and why I make that assertion.
I need not justify a non-belief.
Can't prove a negative....difference.
There you have it. You had no good reason to do so.
I rest my case.
As a theist, I accept God.
As an atheist, you don't.
From those positions we a either accept that God Is, or there is no God.
I accept that God is the origin of what is termed existence. You accept that God isn't the origin of anything, because there is no God.
These are foundational positions.
Like you said, there are men, and there are women.
I need not justify a belief, if that is the case.
You cannot speak from the perspective of a theist, unless you're a theist.
I realised I was fooling myself. You think that's not a good reason, to become a theist?
Your case is atheism.
That's all it can be.
I can name gods you probably don't accept. Here's one: Sterculius, the Roman God of excrement (more literally, fertilizer). You are a Sterculius atheist.
All these years, and you still don't know the difference between God, and god's.
But I believe pigs can fly. I have no good reason to do so, but hey , I just do.
Do you believe flying pigs exist?
There is plenty of obvious evidence all over the internet that Santa is real, just go find it.
Given that then, you admit to believing in Santa?
It was refuted when you first said it, it's still refuted now.
This is going badly for you. You have run out of argument, so you simply repeat previously refuted assertions.
So you deny that gods exist? But that just means you do accept that gods exist, it's just that you don't believe in them. Just like you don't believe flying pigs exist. You don't deny that they exist, it's just that you don't believe in them.
This is your argument. Do you see now, it is an untenable position.
Separate names with a comma.