God is defined, not described.

[iceaura]

I have to prove that theism is the default position?
And you don't have to prove atheism is the default position?

Yep.

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said:
I have to prove that theism is the default position?
And you don't have to prove atheism is the default position?

Yep.

Moreover science has several logical propositions of non-theistic default positions, which are being debated as we speak..
Tegmark's mathematical universe is but one of them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is plenty of obvious evidence all over the internet that Santa is real, just go find it.

Can't be arsed.

Given that then, you admit to believing in Santa?

Given what?

Jan.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Sorry mate. There is no "end up with".
You begin with, and you develop. Whether theist or atheist.

Obviously, I do not agree with you.

So how is this relevant?

If you don't know any reason you might believe in God, other than God being real, then you're more likely to think that God must be real than to think that God might be a fantasy.

I don't remember saying that.

You say you start by believing and everything else follows from that. You start from theist. It's a presumption, not a conclusion, for you. You've said that.

You might well have some ex post facto rationalisations for your belief, but you have admitted that your belief isn't based on any of those. So it's fundamentally a "leap of faith", not a belief that is based on any process of rational evaluation. You don't have to say that explicitly; the inference follows from everything you say about your belief.

From what you have written, you are without God, and can only discuss God from that perspective.

For me to be without God, in your terms, God would have to exist.

As you are an atheist, you can only know atheist stuff, and atheist stuff is lacking.

If, as by your own admission, you can't ever demonstrate how it is lacking, you might as well give up making that claim.

Most of the time you spend giving idiotic summaries. It doesn't seem to register with you that it is quite rude to talk to others about a person while the person is in the room. So I just ignore it

I don't want readers to fail to see the wood for the trees, nor do I want to make that mistake myself. It's all well and good to respond line-by-line to posts, but I like to step back now and then and look at the bigger picture.

You'd do better to try to counter my analyses of your overall positions on things than to simply dismiss them as "idiotic". Your ignoring and dismissing the major points no doubt tends to send readers the message either that you can't formulate any coherent response, or that you actually want to obscure the main arguments by bogging threads down in repetitive one-line recitations of dogma.

You don't understand theism, or the subject matter of theism. You just soldier in ignorance.

I understand theism. I have direct personal experience of it, for starters.

Recall, though, that it's not me who is trying to redefine theism here. I'm not telling you what theism is. It is you, the theist, who is arrogantly preaching about what atheism is, in the process seeking to define the term itself in a way that few, if any, modern atheists accept.

I do admit to some fascination about the lengths you will go to in a futile attempt to defend the integrity of your own idiosyncratic world view. I can never quite tell whether you're writing stuff just to play to some imagined audience, or whether you actually believe what you're writing. With you, there's a kind of studied turning away from certain topics - just a plain refusal to even consider certain ideas in an honest way. Maybe you think that responding honestly to those ideas would weaken your case, or maybe you're mentally unprepared to face up to those things in your current state. I find it entertainingly ironic that you claim that it is the atheists who are in denial.

Most of the time you think you explained or responded to a point, but you haven't. Most times you don't understand the point, but you write heaps any way.

At least one of us has to give ideas a fair treatment. You're unwilling or unable to do that, and I'm willing to step in and fill in the gaps that you leave.

In short your posts are too long (though no Tiassa long sheesh!).

You don't have to read them - unless you want to keep participating in the discussion, that is. But when you simply ignore substantive points that are put to you, as you regularly do, and then post repeats of the same nonsense that has already been responded to (often over and over again), the net effect is that you just end up looking dishonest, or stupid, or both.

You have this idea that because you think you have explained something, it is therefore dealt with.

It is dealt with, unless and until there is a response that refutes it in some substantive way. When you ignore things, they stay dealt with; they don't go away just because you refuse to look at them.

Just let you know in advance, I don't think I'm going to address all your points, in this post.

Rest assured, I'm used to that. What you leave out of your posts is often more revealing than what you put in. Just to let you know in advance, I will continue to highlight the things you choose to ignore, wherever relevant.

Like this, for example, which follows from the part of my previous post that you just quoted:

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.

You ignored that. Why? Because you have no response? Because you'd rather not think about it? Because, when your position is put in such stark terms it is so obviously ludicrous?

No. It's as I said.

You just failed Logic 101 again.

Atheism is the natural position for those souls who for whatever reason, want to reject, and/or deny God.

It might well be, if God existed, and the atheists knew it, and they wanted to deny it. But you can't import the assumption that God exists into the definition of atheism. There is no such assumption in atheism.

While we're on that point, perhaps you'd like to tell your readers how you managed to reconcile your two statements:
1. For atheists, God does not exist.
2. Atheism presupposes that God exists/Is.

Because, on the one hand, you claim that atheists are "without God", by definition, which presupposes that there is a God to be without (i.e. point 2). And, on the other hand, you claim that God is not real for atheists (point 1).

Tell me: do you think that atheists actually believe God exists/Is, deep down in their little hearts, or not?

I only need to speak from a theistic perspective, and you denial radar goes berserk.

You can speak all you want about your beliefs. That doesn't mean I am obliged to share them.

Don't worry your secret is safe with me.
When anyone asks what an atheist is, I'll give them one of the many designer labels. Do you have any favourites?

Designer labels?

By the way, you often talk about the "original" meaning of "a-theos" as being "without God". But I read just a few days ago that the original Greek was usually taken to mean "ungodly". The focus there is on the characteristics of the person, not on God (or, more accurately, the gods). We have to bear in mind, of course, that the idea of somebody actually believing that the gods were not real was an incredible idea back then, so the word was often used to describe people who were not considered sufficiently pious.

What this tell us is what the atheists here have been saying all along: that atheism is not about whether God exists/Is, but rather it is about what people believe about God/gods. Even in it's "original" terms.

God does not exist, as far as you're aware, James.

You contradict my own direct statement about what I believe. You can believe something different from me, if you like, but you can't tell me what I believe. How presumptuous you are, not to mention silly. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

Why?

Because I have a long-standing general interest in why people believe weird things.

That is an entire subject by itself.

Maybe one day you'll choose to tell us what you think about it. Or maybe not.

Why are you so adamant that God has to be observed in manner of your choosing, to perceived?

What other ways are there to perceive, other than via the usual senses?

If you're claiming I need to open up a whole new method of perception, it would be good if you could explain what that new perception is and how it can be accessed.

But we've already had some discussion of this, have we not? You claimed there was no special "God sense" that (some) human beings have. Or do I have you wrong on that?

That's nice.
A bit like a little hobby, or something.

I'd call it more of an academic interest, but "hobby" is OK if that floats your boat. Put it this way: nobody is paying me to take an interest in this particular topic. Not currently, anyway.

 

[James R]

You're an atheist first, James.

I wouldn't say that of myself. Like I said, atheism is a conclusion, not a fundamental, for me. It is quite unlike your presumptive theism.

In this case, neutral is not admitting that God does not exist, as far as you're aware, but replacing it with "I don't know if God exists, so I can't say yeah or nay. So the burden of proof is on you because I make no claim.

But for the rest of your atheist life you argue strongly against any positive notions of God. You either mock or ridicule, or you accept such behaviour.

We can see right through you.

I really can't say yea or nay. I really don't know whether God exists or not. And neither do you. I'm just willing to admit it, whereas you aren't.

Moreover, you are making a big claim - that God Is/exists. Therefore, the onus really is on you to provide some kind of argument or evidence to support that claim. If you can't, we're left simply with your bald claim and the bare possibility that maybe you're right.

I thank you for your compliment that I am arguing strongly. Earlier in the same post, you were labelling my arguments as "idiotic", if I recall correctly.

There are positive notions of God that are regularly put up in defence of God. But pointing out flaws in those apologies for God is not necessarily an attack on the conclusion, but rather an illumination of the lack of strength in the particular arguments. Something can be true and yet not supported by a particular argument, due to logical difficulties or other problems in the argument itself.

As for mocking, I make no apologises for gentle mocking of ludicrous or inconsistant positions that some people take on different matters. Satire and lightheartedness can be a great antidote to dogma and intransigence in the face of rationality.

I should make it clear that I never set out to ridicule people just because they have weird beliefs about one thing or another. I am much more interested in finding out why they hold those beliefs in the first place, and why they cling so solidly to them, often even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.

When it comes to belief in God, I know may people who believe in God, whom I nevertheless respect for other reasons. You don't have to be stupid to believe in God; a lot of very smart people believe (and have historically believed) in God. Moreover, I respect the rights of people to hold different beliefs, even if those beliefs are sometimes flat-out wrong.

You're an atheist.
No matter what information you acquire, it will always be filtered through atheism. You cannot help it.
If you want to change it, you have to stop being an atheist.

Until that happens, we're never going to see eye to eye.

Once again, you speak as if theism and atheism are set in stone - absolutes that no person can change. And yet, people change their minds about God regularly. When it comes to changing from atheist to theist, or vice versa, usually a person will give some kind of reason for why his views changed, other than a kind of random decision to suddenly "stop being a theist" or similar.

Can't you offer any reason why somebody might want to covert to theism? Is the best you've got to offer really just "You just have to make the change and see how it goes for you?" You're not much of an evangelist.

You're waiting for me to deliver God to you?

You've already admitted that you can't do that, haven't you?

You're an atheist James.
As long as you remain so, there is no God for you.

You mean, as long as I remain so, I won't believe in God. Well, duh.

You need to shed the your atheism to change that.

Yes yes. If I start believing in God, that will make me a theist. I get it.

Anthony Flew did, and he became aware of God.

Did he?

You can do it too.

I fear not, unless some new evidence comes to light.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It was refuted when you first said it, it's still refuted now.

You'll just say anything. Won't you?

This is going badly for you. You have run out of argument, so you simply repeat previously refuted assertions.

What are you babbling on about, Dave?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I wouldn't say that of myself. Like I said, atheism is a conclusion, not a fundamental, for me. It is quite unlike your presumptive theism

IOW atheism is what you desire it to be.

Atheism is simply no belief in God, whereas theism is the opposite. If theism is presumptuous, then atheist is too.

I really can't say yea or nay. I really don't know whether God exists or not. And neither do you. I'm just willing to admit it, whereas you aren't.

I know God doesn't exist like pots and pans exist. At least we're both consistent on that.

Moreover, you are making a big claim - that God Is/exists. Therefore, the onus really is on you to provide some kind of argument or evidence to support that claim. If you can't, we're left simply with your bald claim and the bare possibility that maybe you're right.

No matter what, you're left with atheism. Which defaults to being without God.

I thank you for your compliment that I am arguing strongly. Earlier in the same post, you were labelling my arguments as "idiotic", if I recall

I've never labelled your arguments as idiotic James. Maybe you believe it subconsciously.

There are positive notions of God that are regularly put up in defence of God. But pointing out flaws in those apologies for God is not necessarily an attack on the conclusion, but rather an illumination of the lack of strength in the particular arguments.

You'd have to point those defences out, as I don't know what you are referring to.

You don't have to be stupid to believe in God; a lot of very smart people believe (and have historically believed) in God.

That's nice to know James.

Once again, you speak as if theism and atheism are set in stone - absolutes that no person can change. And yet, people change their minds about God regularly.

How do you know?
Can you read minds?

Can't you offer any reason why somebody might want to covert to theism?

No.
Either you realise God, or you remain without God. There are no buts and maybes.

You've already admitted that you can't do that, haven't you?

That's right.

You mean, as long as I remain so, I won't believe in God. Well, duh.

No. I mean there is no God for you.

Yes yes. If I start believing in God, that will make me a theist. I get it.

First you must accept God.
Then belief can ensue.

Did he?

Yes.

I fear not, unless some new evidence comes to light.

"Fear" being the operative word.
What are you frightened of, James?

Jan.

 

[iceaura]

If theism is presumptuous, then atheist is too.

That's false. Atheism is the default state, and subsequently observational.

Atheism is simply no belief in God, whereas theism is the opposite

There is no such opposite. There is no such thing as the opposite to no belief in God.

First you must accept God.
Then belief can ensue.

As noted: not the default status.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you don't know any reason you might believe in God, other than God being real, then you're more likely to think that God must be real than to think that God might be a fantasy.

Belief in God is natural.
Unfortunately you cannot currently experience that. Hence you are lacking.

You say you start by believing and everything else follows from that. You start from theist. It's a presumption, not a conclusion, for you. You've said that.

You're not listening, are you?
I said you start by accepting.

You might well have some ex post facto rationalisations for your belief, but you have admitted that your belief isn't based on any of those.
So it's fundamentally a "leap of faith", not a belief that is based on any process of rational evaluation. You don't have to say that explicitly; the inference follows from everything you say about your belief.

Or maybe you can't get pass atheism, so you can't see it any other way, because God does not currently exist for you.

Seems like you're desperately trying to score some points, but have nothing to say, apart from some old atheist preset lines.
You're going to have to do better than that.

For me to be without God, in your terms, God would have to exist.

Like pots and pans?

Recall, though, that it's not me who is trying to redefine theism here. I'm not telling you what theism is. It is you, the theist, who is arrogantly preaching about what atheism is, in the process seeking to define the term itself in a way that few, if any, modern atheists accept.

Atheism = no belief in God.
ATheos = without God.

Why is this arrogant, preachy, or wrong?

With you, there's a kind of studied turning away from certain topics - just a plain refusal to even consider certain ideas in an honest way.

Or it could be you're not used to theists highlighting the fact that you're not as informed as you think you are.

Personally I think theists are overly respectful of atheists. I've yet to find an explicit atheist with a clue about God, and theism.

Maybe you think thatresponding honestly to those ideaswould weaken your case, or maybeyou're mentally unprepared to face upto those things in your current state.

If you want to insult me just do it. Why pretend you're tryng explain something.

Ifind it entertainingly ironic that youclaim that it is the atheists who are indenial.

Really? I think it bothers you, and you have to try and some way to restore the balance.
It is obvious that you're in denial, and that you reject God. Furthermore, I think you know that, but, you are in denial.

You ignored that. Why? Because you have no response? Because you'd rather not think about it? Because, when your position is put in such stark terms it is so obviously ludicrous?

5 words...

Like pots and pans James.

It might well be, if God existed, and the atheists knew it, and they wanted to deny it.

I can see how as an atheist, you could arrive at that conclusion.

While we're on that point, perhaps you'd like to tell your readers how you managed to reconcile your two statements:
1. For atheists, God does not exist.
2. Atheism presupposes that God exists/Is.

Here's what I actually wrote...

Atheist = Without belief in God.
Theist =. Belief in God.
IOW an atheist does not believe in God.

Tell me: do you think that atheists actually believe God exists/Is, deep down in their little hearts, or not?

I think atheists have forgotten God.

By the way, you often talk about the "original" meaning of "a-theos" as being "without God". But I read just a few days ago that the original Greek was usually taken to mean "ungodly". The focus there is on the characteristics of the person, not on God (or, more accurately, the gods).

It literally means without or no God.
Ungodly could mean the same, if used used in that context.

What this tell us is what the atheists here have been saying all along: that atheism is not about whether God exists/Is, but rather it is about what people believe about God/gods. Even in it's "original" terms.

Whatever. From an overall perspective, you are still without God, or if you prefer, there is no God for you, or, you don't believe in God. I'm okay with any of those.

I really don't see the point in designing new meanings, as it makes no difference to your position.

You contradict my own direct statement about what I believe. You can believe something different from me, if you like, but you can't tell me what I believe. How presumptuous you are, not to mention silly. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself?

I didn't say you believe it.
Do you actually read what I wrote?

What other ways are there to perceive, other than via the usual senses?

Helens Keller puts it nicely.

"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart."

If you're claiming I need to open up a whole new method of perception, it would be good if you could explain what that new perception is and how it can be accessed.

Stop rejecting, and denying God. It is a futile exercise.

Jan.

 

[Tiassa]

Atheism is the default state, and subsequently observational.

Atheism evangelized is a reaction, and subsequently thus invested.

 

[Write4U]

Belief in God is natural.
Unfortunately you cannot currently experience that. Hence you are lacking.

Belief in God is natural? You said yourself that there was a time when you did not believe in God, but then without reason, you started to believe in God.
Doesn't sound "natural" to me. Something must have happened that made you believe in God. You had a revelation.

I can accept that you had a revelation, but that does not prove anything. It was a "personal" experience, a product of the neurons in your brain. As Anil Seth explained this is a hallucination, a "best guess".

But that does not place you in a position of authority, i.e. knowing for sure by verification.
Without persistent evidence, your "best guess" remains a guess at best, regardless if you consider it a revelation.

OTOH, there is no evidence at all for the necessary existence of a God. Therefore, an atheist has no need to make a "best guess" in the first place. There is no need to even attempt to make a "best guess", because without verification your "best guess" is and remains an hallucination, a mental creation of your brain.

A Tulpa. I do believe in Tulpas, not because they exist in reality, but I accept that people can create Tulpas.

This may be of interest,

What is a tulpa?
A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you.

Does this sound familiar? If so check out this website from the Tulpa community. It's quite interesting and informative. http://www.tulpa.info/

It can be said that everyone, who has ever talked to themselves, has a Tulpa. A trusted friend with whom you can share you most intimate thoughts. You have identified your Tulpa as God. As have many others and is the reason why religions came into existence.

Religions are an attempt to control the hallucination (revelation) into a cohesive whole being. But history has taught us that this is impossible without enforcement.

But that does not make your Tulpa my Tulpa. It's your Tulpa and will remain so forever, you created him and only you can maintain him and as long as your Tulpa remains benevolent, I have no problem with that. It is when your Tulpa tells you to try and convince others that they must believe in your Tulpa, that creates a real problem, because the other person's Tulpa will resist the intrusion and conflict ensues. The infamous "confounding of language".

So don't argue the case for your Tulpa. No one will accept your Tulpa. It is yours and yours alone.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Belief in God is natural?

Yes.

You said yourself that there was a time when you did not believe in God, but then without reason, you started to believe in God.

Where did I say this?

Something must have happened that made you believe in God. You had a revelation.

An atheist trying to explain why a person believes in God.
Hilarious.

I can accept that you had a revelation, but that does not prove anything.

I accept that you are without God.
I accept you can not know anything beyond your label.

But that does not place you in a position of authority, i.e. knowing for sure by verification.

I never claimed to be an authority.
I am a theist. That is my claim.

Without persistent evidence, your "best guess" remains a guess at best, regardless if you consider it a revelation.

Without persistent evidence of what?

OTOH, there is no evidence at all for the necessary existence of a God. Therefore, an atheist has no need to make a "best guess" in the first place. There is no need to even attempt to make a "best guess", because without verification your "best guess" is and remains an hallucination, a mental creation of your brain.

Wow! This is the best explanation you have? Pitiful.

You're an atheist.
God does not exist as far as you're aware.
You cannot know if there is any evidence for God.
One reason is, you wouldn't know whether it was evidence or not.
Why? Because there is no God, for you.
Any speculation you make about God, is done through the filter of God does NOT exist.

The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

Atheism is the default state, and subsequently observational.

For atheists. Yes.

There is no such opposite. There is no such thing as the opposite to no belief in God.

You're right. It doesn't seem right. My bad. Atheism is the opposite of theism.

As noted: not the default status.

Irrelevant.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Dave. Explain what you think God is.
Jan.

I don't think that Dave bothered to answer that question,so I will.

God is a figment of your imagination.. Clear enough?

 

[river]

Jan

Is god or a higher being in all things ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I don't think that Dave bothered to answer that question,so I will.

God is a figment of your imagination.. Clear enough?

Yes. That is the kind of answer I would expect from an atheist.
Thank you for proving my point.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan

Is god or a higher being in all things ?

What do you mean by "god", and what context are you using "in"?

Jan.

 

[river]

What do you mean by "god", and what context are you using "in"?

Jan.

That all things from rocks to living , have ALL a god or higher being proponet in them .

 

[Jan Ardena]

That all things from rocks to living , have ALL a god or higher being proponet in them .

I doubt it.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

iceaura said:
Atheism is the default state, and subsequently observational.

Yes.

So, you agree, that atheists come to conclusions about the world through observation and explanation of that which is being observed and which has not revealed any evidence that a God exists..

OTOH, you admit that you just assume God exists, without any evidence from observation and conclusion of available information?

Where did I say this?

Jan Ardena said,
"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. Jan".

Thus you admit that you became a believer without any logical reason or evidence on which to base your conversion to theism?

An atheist trying to explain why a person believes in God. Hilarious.

The hilarious part is that a theist believes in God, but is unable to explain why he does believe in God.

I accept that you are without God. I accept you can not know anything beyond your label.

Au contrare, I have the same information about God available to me as you do (4 Bibles), which offer no evidence of the existence of God. None whatsoever.

I never claimed to be an authority. I am a theist. That is my claim.

If you admit your ignorance on the subject, then your claim amounts to a hill of beans.

Without persistent evidence of what?

The existence of an unseeable, undefinable, mythological being? The only persistent evidence is your blind acceptance of such a being, without "one good reason to do so" (your words).

Wow! This is the best explanation you have? Pitiful.

Wow! You are the one without explanation whatsoever. Now that's pitiful.

You're an atheist. God does not exist as far as you're aware. You cannot know if there is any evidence for God.

Nor do you. Can you provide any evidence?

One reason is, you wouldn't know whether it was evidence or not.

Nor do you.

Why? Because there is no God, for you.

Correct. There is no evidence available on which to base belief there is a God. If there were, I would study it carefully and make my decision if the evidence was evidence of a God.

Any speculation you make about God, is done through the filter of God does NOT exist.

Wrong assumption. I have no filters of any kind. It is you who sees the world through the filter of theism.

The rest of your post is irrelevant. Jan

As seen through your unfounded and indefensible filter of a self-created imaginary Tulpa (which you have named God).

You do realize that your God has no resemblance to anyone else's God. Your God is only meaningful to you and not meaningful to anyone else, even if they are theist themselves. In fact this individual interpretation of who or what God is has been the cause for many persecutions and wars. Can you deny that?

I don't blame you for creating a Tulpa, as long as your Tulpa is benign and does not order you to kill someone who does not believe in your Tulpa.

What you fail to see that religions are designed to form a common Tulpa into your neural system, to which all must obey, or else Damnation, Hell, Infinite suffering till the end of time. But your Tulpa loves you and you only, which is entirely understandable, it is your self-created Tulpa, your own personal God.