Jan Ardena: This is a bit off topic, but I'm interested. You referred previously to the man who "compiled" the Vedas. Where did the original writings come from? At what point did God step in personally to do the writing? You accept that Capracus is your God, then? Responding to statements out of the context they obviously have wastes your time and mine. Why? Because God isn't an "entity", or because God doesn't claim to be God? It would be easier if, for once, you could explain what you mean instead of needing me to wheedle a coherent statement out of you. Read my previous post to Musika where I explained this. Once again, Jan, context is important. My posts to you appear the context of a thread discussing a topic. You'll understand my posts better if you read not only what I write to you, but also the other things I write on the same topic, not directly addressed to you.
Musika: What I take away from this is that you judged Capracus's claim primarily based on the reaction of other people to it. Is this the same process you use to conclude that your God is real? If enough people believe it, then it's probably true?
I am not espousing the benefits of any belief system. I am specifically addressing the detriments of historic religious behavior and that history is a testament for my reluctance to give theistic religions much credit for any good deed that could not be afforded to any atheist.
I was citing other people's reaction primarily to establish how uniform the thought processes were that went in to them. For instance, if I was to pose as the president here, I'm pretty sure it would warrant uniform disregard in pursuit of uniform reasons, regardless of anyone's political affiliations or ideas or level of engagement. IOW, aside from the "political" question, there is a basic understanding of what it means to be president. Step outside of it, and things very quickly become untenable (or, alternatively, parody ... as it was the case here). As mentioned, if Capracus took my earlier invitation to up his game, perhaps the outcome might have been different, but, as it stands, you are introducing an unnecessary level of complexity to this issue.
You just labelled Jan insincere for "balking" at the prospect of killing/dying in the name of God, and in the very next contribution start getting concerned if people take your advice seriously.
Atheists had nothing to do with 911 and all the other suicide bombings in the name of Allah. Of course. The more committed and fundamental religious people are the more dangerous they seem to become. Look at it from the victim's point of view. Your country can ask you to give your life, you don't think religion should be able to do the same thing? What if your country is waging religious war?
What? They are the most sincere Theists one can imagine. They martyred themselves in the name of God, for the greater good ! (?). In the West we had the call to the "Crusades". This is what prompted my question to begin with. Does it pose a quandary in your world? It doesn't in mine. The problem doesn't exist...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's very comvenient of you to type your words in bold at points where you make ridiculous claims. It makes it easier for the rest of us to understand.
This is how the oA theist responds to actual, apropos, relevant, invitations to up their game in a thread-critical manner: Off-topic posts from the "Evidence that God is real" thread They will never be able to post argument from evidence that Capracus is not their God, but that will never matter - discussion is not why they're here.
As you said, it is off topic. No. I accept that Capracus is an entity claiming to be God. His description. An entity is an entity, not what it claims to be. On any level. It would be far easier if you stop pretending to not comprehend what I’m saying. You are an entity and you go by the, or a name ,James R. I accept that, because easy enough for you to do. If you went by the name of God, or Spider-Man, I could accept that. Because it’s easy to do. if you claim to be Spider-Man, or you claim to be God. Then you’re going to have to prove that, for your claim to be accepted. No one here accepts that Capracus is God, because he has done nothing that shows he is God. Remember, he made the claim. And we all have ideas, of what constitute evidence of God, irrespective of denial, or rejection. Otherwise why ask for proof or evidence of God. Musika, very nicely, explains that if God assumed the character of an ignorant atheist, it would be the best example, ever, of an ignorant atheist. God would exemplify, with absolute precision, ignorance, and atheism. If God, as the ignorant atheist, claimed to be God. Then it stands to reason that God would reveal Himself. Otherwise why make the claim. If context is important, then please respond to why you don’t accept Capracus as God. You will find that their is a point in the context that I am proposing. So far you keep fobbing me off with this, I’ve already discussed it here or there, and I should go look see. You don’t like that kind of approach in the evidence thread, even though you and I have been discussing it for years. You know all of WLC’s arguments, and you know where I’m coming from. Yet you want to bring it up again. I would discuss it wit you in a way that you like. But I think you need to realise what your own attitude looks like. Do you think you can break this habit. Or are you going to continue with this, already explained, already did, evasion? Jan.
You were tasked to compare a portrayal of of that God with either a known example, or a logical expectation of that God, and instead compared it to a preconceived example that violated the very omnimax standard you agreed to. If in fact an onmnimax God is currently operational, then every aspect of reality is a product of this God, that includes the good, the bad, and the ugly. So if you have a problem with God posing as an online imbecile, then you’d presumably have a problem with this God allowing mass starvation, genocide, and extinction level events. What about the ugly side of Musika’s God? The atheists going in knew the futility in defining the qualities of an omnimax God, so it wouldn’t matter how the role was portrayed. I could’ve told them what they ate for breakfast and supplied them with winning lottery numbers and they would still have sense enough to doubt the claim. You on the other hand claim that it is possible to know an omnimax God, so theoretically you should be able demonstrate a process of separating God from pretenders. But we all know in this case you failed to do so. Why is that? Exactly. When you propose a god that can be and do anything, it defies classification. So if you’re not willing to accept this fact, why did you propose such a god as your ideal? Jesus Fornicating Christ, how does any human being up its game sufficiently to impersonate an omnimax God? The only way any human can pass as such a god is to declare a perogative to act human instead of divine. So if James had created a thread titled Prove Musika is not God, you could have played the role more convincingly? Ha! I beg you, please dawn your halo and give it a go.
What are you talking about? Seems to me you are actually trolling? What is this oA theist nonsense. As far as I can see both Musika and myself do come here to discuss, and do discuss. That possibily the reason why threads we post on tend to get quite busy, and in some cases lively. That you don’t agree with us, is cool. It would be boring if you did. But at least try and explain what you’re talking about, because it’s getting to the point wher I’m thinking you’ had some kind of breakdown. I hope it doesn’t come across as disrespectful, because that is not my intention here. But you’re not really stating your case as an atheist. As theists, we believe in God. As atheists, you don’t. You may not like that distinction, but is actually true. It is from that truth basis, that it follows that atheists are in denia, and rejection of God. So if you think that I’m saying that to insult atheists, you couldn’t be further from the truth, as that conclusion is based on truth. If you think I am mistaken, then show how, instead of the cryptic stuff you keep bringing up. Jan.
Jan Ardena: I'm not pretending when I tell you I don't understand something you've said. I don't ask for clarification just to make you jump through hoops. I ask for clarification when something you've said is not clear to me. I claim to be a human being, and I am a human being, aren't I? Isn't that an entity being something it claims to be? I get your second point, though, about the necessity for proof of claims. You, for example, claim there is an entity you call God. But when I ask you what evidence you have for that, suddenly it's tumbleweeds. I agree with you. The obvious next question is: what has the real God done that shows he is God, and how do you know he did it? It was only a post or two above the one I wrote to you. Not too hard to find. It's also a very brief point, but I did explain a bit. I don't accept Capracus as god because the available evidence is insufficient to convince me that he's God. Moreover, nobody has ever turned out to be God before, so it would be surprising, to say the least, if Capracus was to do so. When it comes to Capracus, it appears that you and I are on the same page. We share similar reasoning for why he probably isn't God. On the other hand, if we dig just a bit under the surface, I'm sure we'll quickly uncover differences. For example, you would probably claim to know that he isn't God, even though you can't know for sure. You'd also tell me you can know for sure, but you won't tell me how you can know for sure. I recall one previous discussion of one aspect of one of Craig's arguments for God, namely the Kalam Cosmological Argument and how it begs the question. That discussion only covered one criticism of that argument. There are many more that we never got to, yet that one criticism alone was enough to sink that ship. The Kalam argument is in no way evidence of God, either. It does nothing to make God evident. It's at best a philosophical argument for God. Even from that perspective, when we look at it in detail we see that God is essentially tacked onto the argument in a non sequitur fashion by Craig as an additional conclusion that only follows if he rigs the first premise of the argument. And at the end of the day it doesn't point even vaguely towards the Christian God that Craig concludes from it.
Sounds easy. God sans-goof > Goofy God. Plenty of successful arguments out there regarding theodicy that have no requirement for God to be an imbecile. Nonsense. An atheist took the offensive for about 2 posts before they realized it was just another atheist taking the piss, at which point they joined everyone else who was in on the gig, and let it slide. But you couldn't. In fact you did nothing. Nothing beyond what one would expect of an illiterate atheist to be capable of. And that is how you were treated uniformly across the board, from atheists and theists alike. I already gave a few clues at the start on what it would take to up your game. You never went there. Even at this late stage of the game, it is not clear you have properly understood the fatal flaws in professing an object as existing through utilizing incongruent subjects. You are harping on to the end that "God has no qualities (subjects)", but if that was true, charading (even if only to the degree of the half-arsed) would not be possible. But that aside, yes, there is a complex framework behind the notion of determining the nature of God, but as far as current affairs go, there is no need to call upon that. The whole ordeal you gave us was merely an exercise of spot-the-goof, which is something atheists and theists can participate in just as easily and equally as one another.
If a dog could, it would say I am a dog. Both are “I”. It seems the “I” can claim loads of things, but they are simply essentially “I”.My perspective (theist) Is about the “I”, whereas yours (atheist), are about the designations. That’s because you’re all about the designations. Not for me. But for one who see designations... Okay. Why is the evidence insufficient? I take it that if you know the evidence is insufficient, you must have an idea of what would be sufficient evidence. Can you tell us what that would be? So if the evidence that Capracus is not God, is because no one has ever turned out to be God (according to your worldview) )before. How is that evidence. By your own standards? Capracus isn’t God. God could appear to be Capracus (if He wanted to be). I know for sure Capracus isn’t God. More importantly Capracus knows for sure he isn’t God. You’re not sure because for you there is no God, unless there is evidence. But you cannot discern evidence, as long as you are an atheist. You are caught in a loop. There is no God, unless there is evidence. I can never identify the evidence, so there is no God until the evidence presents itself. When the evidence presents itself, I will accept there is a God. I can not identify what is evidence of God, so there is no God until the evidence presents itself, until the evidence presents itself, I have to conclude there is no God. As I am currently unable to identify evidence for God, I have to assume there is no God, until the evidence presents itself, till that time comes I have to conclude there is no God. Then you fall on the floor in dizzy heap. You’re right because that would be a waste of my time. We should move on and discuss the loop. See if we can stop it. Then we could discuss God. Firstly you don’t know what is evidence of God. Secondly, it depends on who you ask. As for me, I think it is decent evidence of God, if you don’t deny, and, or, reject God. For those stuck in the loop, there can never be evidence for God. So discussing evidence for God is always going to be a futile endeavour. But it can be nice. That’s where WLC goes wrong. He thinks God is the “Christian God”. In this way his comprehension of God is limited. I don’t know what “ Christian God” means (topic for another thread perhaps). Jan
For you it's absolutely necessary. You easily overlook a fact unless having your nose rubbed in it. Fact is that Jihadist suicide bombers are sincerely committed religious persons. The problem is that this sincerity is not applied for productive but rather for destructive purposes. They are willing to sacrifice their lives to the cause and reap the promised award for their efforts. After all, there will be 40 virgins awaiting them in the hereafter........Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ask yourself, how many sincerely religious persons are eagerly awaiting the "rapture". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The "rapture". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The "aftermath" (looks like a nuclear holocaust to me). Sounds like a lot of people are wishing for total destruction of mankind, except for a chosen few!!!!.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Sincerity?
No, no.... Jan, I am a sincerely committed irreligious person. Life is difficult enough without having to worry about meeting other people's religious expectations. p.s. I do practice meditation (sans the invisible ear in the sky).
