Jan Ardena:
Let's assume, you accept the original meaning of the term "atheist" (without God).
But I don't accept your preferred meaning of "atheist".
What do you think you could actually know about God?
Using your meaning, I could know all the same stuff you claim to know about God, but I would nevertheless choose to deny or reject him for reasons that you haven't made clear.
On the other hand, the actual position we find ourselves in is one in which we both, in principle, have the same access to information about God. However, based on what we each know about God, you end up with belief, while I do not. The reason might, in theory, be that I know some things you don't, or vice versa. However, from what you have said, you actually don't believe in God for a
reason. From what you have written, it is clear that your belief is based on an
a priori assumption rather than any process of reasoning.
You only need to know that for you, there is no God.
No. I need to know the objective truth. Like I said, it may not be important to you, but it's important to me.
You seem to specialise in denial.
What have I denied? (I also note that I wrote a post not too far above talking specifically about denial, that you ignored. You are very selective about what you choose to respond to, and I notice that your general pattern is to ignore the hard stuff and to write one-liners in response to the rest. I also notice that you don't take points on board. You pretend you never saw them, and you revert back to your straw men, often in your very next post.)
You are committed to your position, which means you are forced to reject and deny God, or any attributes belonging to God.
What attributes belong to God? And how do you know this?
You can no sooner accept God, than a white supremacist can accept black people.
So the problem, as you see it, is only that I'm set in my ways. I think you have a bigger problem than that. Maybe one day you'll start honestly asking yourself some questions about what you really know and what you don't know.
God isn't anything like pots and pans. But I've already explained this. Haven't I?
Yes. Your argument is that the thing that enables existence itself need not actually exist. It's a fairly tortured kind of argument, on its face.
I presuppose God because I am a theist.
No. You're a theist because you presuppose God. The same cannot be said for all theists. Many theists, for example, will give reasons for why they believe in God, but you don't think you need reasons.
You presuppose no God because you are an atheist.
Atheism is a conclusion, not an assumption. You can't get there unless you ask the question, and you have no interest in asking the question.
My response makes no difference to you. You're just looking for a way to deflect the attention.
I don't think you have a good response. But we don't need to do this in this thread. I started a separate one on this particular question. You can participate in that, or not, as you wish. My strong suspicion is that you have nothing to say on the matter, and if that's the case, that's just fine. Some other theists are responding, anyway.
I'm interested in why you reject, and deny God. You know that you have no reason to. And you know that arguments for God, are stronger, and despite the atheist claims that they have been refuted, they have not.
So why do you insist on rejection and denial?
We're not even having that discussion in this thread.
You have put no arguments for God here, strong or weak. You simply advocate that people should
just believe in God, for no reason. Just assume it from the start, you say, and everything will be all right!
You might have a stronger argument for claiming I'm in denial if you actually gave me something to deny. All we have from this thread is my unwillingness to accept your
a priori assumption, which is there because there is no
reason to accept it.
What I insist upon, for myself, is rationality, consistency and reasonableness. It is nice to come across other people who set the same standards for themselves, but I know that there are many who do not. I realise the futility of trying to insist on such things for other people.
What do you comprehend about these other descriptions, why you think they differ from mine?
Why does it matter what I think about the ways in which other theisms differ from yours? We're not debating religious diversity here, but the basics of belief.
I am a theist. That's what is important.
Of course. Asking the question might create dissonance for you, so you won't ask it. I completely understand why you are afraid.
You're acting as though I have to explain my fundamental position, and you don't.
I have already explained my position, several times, at some length. I also understand precisely what your position is.
All the battle here is to get you to accept what you have been told about atheists and atheism, instead of this straw-man version you've invented to make yourself feel more comfortable.
The problem is, you cannot have discussion about God, because God does not exist, as far as you're aware. You cannot accept that people believe in God, because of that problem. So discussions always go down the "there's no evidence of God, route.
I want to go down the, why do you reject and/deny God route, for a change.
Firstly, I have told you time and again that I don't know whether God exists or not, but you keep ignoring that; it doesn't suit he straw-man image you have of atheism.
Second, I completely accept that (some) people believe in God, and I am quite interested in what are the factors that lead them to hold that belief. I'm not sure why you would imagine I have difficulty accepting the rather obvious fact that people believe all kinds of different things.
Third, it could be interesting to hear your theory on why atheists reject/deny God. Maybe you should start a new thread where we can examine your ideas on that. It would give me some additional insight into the particular kind of theist mindset you display.
It really makes no difference, to you.
It makes quite a lot of difference to me, actually. If God was actually observed, I would be very interested to learn how that observation could be confirmed, for obvious reasons. On the other hand, if God is merely defined, then my interest lies mainly in the psychology/culture/history/neuroscience/etc. that leads to the idea of God being so prevalent and persistent.
You view from the pov of 'there is no God'. It doesn't matter what I say, you will only see it from your atheist perspective. To grasp anything of what I'm saying, you need to stop being an atheist.
I view it from the point of view that we shouldn't accept things in the absence of any evidence. Blame my scientific training or mindset for that, if you like; I make no apologies for that.
But do not dismiss the equally obvious characteristics of atheism (before designer labels) which is central to your worldview.
The only obvious characteristic of atheism, as far as I can tell, is a non-belief in God.
What other obvious characteristics of atheists do you have in mind?
The problem is, you desire to hold this position of not having to be accountable for your position. You fool yourself into thinking you are neutral, that you don't have beliefs, or faith.
The belief we're concerned about here is the belief that God exists. I don't have that belief/faith. You do have that belief/faith. Neither of us is "neutral" in terms of that belief - we come down on one side of the line or the other. "Neutral" would be failing to have any belief as to whether or not God is real.
As for accountability, I believe I have "accounted for" my belief, in that I have explained why I hold the belief I hold. That's the only kind of accounting needed for a belief. In that sense, you have also accounted for your belief. My explanation happens to be based on reason, while yours is based on
a priori assumption.
The only difference between atheists and theists are that atheists are without God.
The real difference is only that atheists don't have the God belief that theists have.
A separate question is the one about whether God actually exists, objectively. Unless God exists, atheists can't properly be described as "without God" in the sense that you use that term, for reasons that I have explained at length previously. And you continue to fail to make any progress in showing that God exists/"Is".
open up.
