Yes, he does. There is no doubt at all than Jan does see the difference. His argument has run its course long ago, and he simply rebuffs any further discussion with either "God is!!!!" Or "You are without God." He's stuck defending himself to save face, and has no way out of this discussion without us letting him out.
There is no contrast or alternative to being "without God"? Some atheists might want to make that argument, but I'm not sure that you want to make it. At least if you want to continue posing as a theist.
Alternative Thor Is There is Thor and AThor Can I plead a little leeway here? The view is not strongly held I have a comic book as evidence I promise no follow up I promise to forensic check any reaction Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's as pointless a question as me asking you what makes you so sure that God doesn't exist. The reality is some people accept Theos, and some people don't. You're correct from your perspective. That wasn't my point. You're insulting me, and and I am not insulting atheists. Based on that logic, you're trying to define God OUT of existence. The atheist position has to be that God doesn't currently exist. He can reason that God probably does not exist, but that is not a practical position. Already explained. Is it.? Where did I say that? I do not agree. If God exists, then for atheists God does not currently exist. God not existing is an atheist idea. No. A theist is so because he believes in God. I've said it on quite a few occasions, that existence or not, of God, is an atheist question. What is your evaluation process of deciding whether or not God exists? You say that because for you God does not exist. If that gives comfort James, I'm okay with that as I know you suffer with control issues. Do you need to be right that God does not exist? And you just go along merely assuming there is no evidence for God. All I've said is that atheists are without God, and I am right. What you need to do if you want to make progress is to honestly consider how you know there is no evidence for God, making God non existent. Works both ways James. Because you keep bringing up the same points, and ask the same questions which I have answered already. Jan.
Jan, I'd like to clarify this one point of ambiguity. You say (paraphrased) "For me X exists, for you X does not." or perhaps "For me X does not exist, for you X it does." (It doesn't matter what X is, I'm concentrating on what is means to exist or not.) Do you agree that - when we are talking about existing versus not existing - we are talking about an objective property? Because we are talking about the same universe, does that not require that one of us is right and the other wrong? If God really exists objectively in the universe then it is not true that "God does not exist for us", it can only be stated that he exists somewhere but we are unaware of it. If you have seen a black swan, and I say they don't exist (merely because I've never seen one), am I not wrong?
Got it So I guess you put me in the atheists bunch? I put me in the Thorist (or Thorian as has been suggested) bunch believing in Thor Believing in god Thor gains me membership to the Theist club You (and I am presuming here) do not believe in Thor By your logic I put you in the AThorist (or AThorian - you can choose) bunch Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am unaware of James process Mine is looking at EVIDENCE which you have stated exist for your god but have kept hidden Oh dear Guess I will have to be content being a Thesist with god Thor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jan Ardena: Tut tut, Jan. There you go again. Stop being so rude. I have explicitly stated to you many times in this thread alone that I am not sure that God doesn't exist. Why do you keep ignoring what I tell you about my own position, and insisting that my actual position is different to what I say it is? You're implicitly calling me a liar. Let's be clear: only one of us is sure about this whole existence of God business, and that's you. And the problem with that is that you have no valid grounds on which to claim the certainty you claim. No. Your definition of "athiest", to paraphrase, is " a person who is 'without God' because he or she refuses to 'acknowledge' the God who Is." That's trying to define God into existence. You're saying that a person can't be an atheist unless God exists. Therefore, since people do claim to be atheists, therefore God exists. It's a bizarre way to try to define God into existence, yet this is what you're asking your readers to accept. Why is it not a practical position? Because it is "obvious" that God exists? It isn't obvious, Jan. You're just stuck in a rut where you won't think outside the box. Obviously you're either not reading what I'm writing or you're simply ignoring it in order to repeat your errors. I've addressed the matter of objective existence vs. "existence for you" ad nauseam in this thread, but it goes in one ear for you and out the other. I'm not going to do it again. I don't think you're really as incapable of understanding the point as you would have your readers believe. It's a pity you won't discuss things in good faith. Well, it's an atheistic idea. Of course it is, by definition. And I've said, again ad nauseam, that you can't "believe in" something that you believe does not exist. "Believe in" means trusting, placing one's confidence in, etc. You wouldn't do that if you did not first believe that the object of your trust, confidence etc. actually existed. "Belief in X" logically comes after "belief that X exists". I understand that for many theists, and perhaps for yourself, the whole dive into the God thing might have happened in a big rush, so that it could seem like you went from nothing to "believe in" without ever considering the "belief that God exists". But that belief that God exists had to be there before it was possible to "believe in", none the less. Unless, that is, I have it all wrong, and (some) theists are so irrational that they are willing to "believe in" things that they do not actually believe exist. ("Homeopathy? I believe in it's curative powers wholeheartedly, but I don't think that water really has a 'memory'.") 1. Consider all the evidence available to me, as carefully and as objectively as possible. 2. Make informed judgment based on 1. 3. If not completely sure that informed judgment is water-tight, be prepared to change mind in light of new evidence. Recurring problems: 1. "Existence for you" vs. objective existence. 2. Failure to take on board (again!) what I have told you about my views. 3. Failure to address the actual problem, that being that you claim to have knowledge you do not have. Heh. Nice one, Jan. This entire discussion is about you trying to control the definition of "atheist", and about your desperate attempt to import the assumption that God exists into that definition. Far from it! I'd be most pleased to discover that God exists after all. I have some questions for him if he does. It's not so much that there's no evidence. The problem is that the evidence advanced is so weak. I think the best evidence there is for God is hopelessly subjective, and that's a big problem for somebody who knows something about how the mind works. Your "without God" imports the assumption that God exists. You have to establish that, not simply assert it or take it for granted. Not when you're talking to atheists. Obviously it matters to you that you are "right", despite your protestation that you're not trying to convince anybody.
You know, we have allowed this discussion to go on for 600 posts, framed in a theist's mindset. We haven't really advanced the viewpoint of what is being called atheism. A more correct term might be simply "the viewpoint of a rational person". We quite simply think it is just a matter of everyday, vanilla, rational thinking. That's why we don't have a name for ourselves; there is no 'we'. We've accepted the term 'atheist', allowing a continued theist bias. But the term doesn't define the person. - Jan cannot define us by a label as being 'without God' any more than - we may define Jan by a label as 'believing in a bearded, robed guy, with a staff, lying on a cloud'. But, "each of us individuals who have come to the same rational conclusion that God probably does not exist" is a bit ponderous in discussion, so we could simply consider ourselves Rationalists. Rational logic is the core - the common element - that unites our disparate views.
The fact that humans are capable of deceiving themselves is something we all all know (even theists have to grant that, in the general case this is so). Thus, the inevitable logical conclusion is that they can state what they perceive with their senses, and they can state what happens in their head, but anything else is subject to the caveat that we are flawed detectors of reality. This leads directly to the conclusion that humans can not know things for certain. We go through life unconsciously verifying at each step our world view is still in place. And this leads directly to the rational idea that we (all humans) cannot know if God exists and we cannot know that he doesn't unless he actually presents objective evidence we can all examine and conclude that a world view with him in it makes more sense than a world view without him in it. Contrast this with an example viewpoint (because I can't lump all theists in one lump) viewpoint that There Is No Doubt. I wold posit that Jan must believe he has infallible, superhuman, perceptive powers.
If this were true, then he must be God. He will be extremely busy, answering all the questions that have gone unanswered for more than 25,000 years. This is a very rough estimate of when the Neanderthals (and the recently-arrived modern humans) started asking questions about life and eternity (judging by the objects that they began burying with their dead).
I have advanced this hypothesis previously. Jan presumes to have the ability to know actual truth. Which is a superhuman ability (since all humans, by definition, are trapped in flawed, fallible bodies). i.e. a god.
I'm going to explain one more time. You can consider what you like, but God does Not currently exist as far as youre. aware (your own admission), which is why you require evidence in order to accept. That is your position You're sure that there is currently no evidence of God's existence. Aren't you? Hence you must be sure that external evidence could be available. Do you think it is possible that God exists and you are currently in able of comprehending Him? Yes this is my demonstrable definition of the term' atheist'. I'm saying, there is Theos, and ATheos. There is God, and there are those who are without God. From my perspective, that is what I see. It is a concept. You cannot live your life by or through it. If you live as though God does not exist, you're an atheist, or in the case of a theist, atheistic. You and Sarkus have this habit of thinking because you repeat something, I must accept it, and move on. We'll here's the thing. I don't agree with you. So either attempt to explain it in a another way, or act by you own standard and accept what I have repeated and move on. A person who is without compassion cannot comprehend compassion as it is. Why? Because you have to have compassion to know what it is. It is true that compassion, as it is, exists for those who have it, and it does not exist for those that don't I don't believe I am replying to you, I know I am. The question of your existence never, ever, comes into question. God is the embodiment of existence. God Is the reason we exist in this form. Elephants, and newspapers exist. To say God (merely) exists, is to put God on the same level as other things that exist. That is what you do, which is why God doesn't exist for you. Outside of comprehending that theists exist, you don't seem to understand anything about God, or belief in God. So no, you don't understand (and don't think I didn't notice your insult). I accept that as your perspective, one without God. I think you need to really embrace the fact that as you are without God, you are only privy to conceptualising God, and belief in God. You can currently go no further. How do you evaluate the evidence? Currently, as far as you are aware, God does not exist (even though it is not the be all end all), so you obviously have evaluated the evidence. My other question is, at what point in the evaluation process did you decide that God does not (probably) exist? And I've told you my views which you have failed to take on board (again). Nope. All atheists are without God. This means they don't believe in God, for whatever reason. FACT. LOL!!! I'm sure you may agree with me when I say, you idea does not mean God does not exist, only that for you, God does not exist. You can't think that to be a universal right. Can you? You're atheism imports the assumption that God does not exist, for whatever reason. It matters to everyone that they are correct. Jan.
Humans are capable of not deceiving themselves also. Unless it fits within your worldview. Yet here you are espousing certainty. Hypocrite. That's not how it works. Remember, you're the one for whom God does not exist. No. Just human powers. Jan.
From my perspective there are Thorist and AThorist And since Thor is a god and I am going to presume here you don't believe in Thor you are a AThorist From my perspective that is what I see You're sure that there is currently no evidence of Thor's existence aren't you? Hence you must be sure that external evidence could be available. Do you think it is possible that Thor exists and you are currently incapable of comprehending Him? Thor is the embodiment of existence Thor Is the reason we exist in this form And why ants and magazines exist in their form To say Thor (merely) exists is to put Thor on the same level as other things that exist like ants and magazines That is what you do Lower Thor down down to mearly being in existence Which is why Thor doesn't exist for you I'm sure you should agree with me when I say your idea does not mean Thor does not exist Only that for you Thor does not exist You can't think that to be a universal correctness can you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you agree that you are also without God? If you don't agree, then precisely what is the difference between you and the atheists? You don't seem to like contrasting the atheists being 'without God' (a charge that you throw out repeatedly) with the idea that theists are 'with God'. So how would you prefer to describe your distinction between atheists and theists?
No I don't. I acknowledge God. Being without generally means, in the absence of. It means that while that thing is available, it is absent. For me, God isn't absent For the atheist, God is absent. For whatever reason. There is God (Theos), and there is without God (absent) ATheos. Atheists do not believe in God (for whatever reason), everyone else does. Jan.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!https://lifehopeandtruth.com/change...in-absolutes-and-why-you-shouldnt-believe-it/
