God is defined, not described.

[Write4U]

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

What point?

 

[Write4U]

I doubt it. Jan.

You doubt that God is omni-present? Or do you doubt he is omnipotent? Is it possible that is because he is your God and you are just an evolved living organism.?

 

[DaveC426913]

Can't be arsed.
Given what?
Jan.

You said that if Santa left obvious evidence to the point where you have no excuse for suppression, you'd be in denial.

Given that there is plenty of evidence for you to go find, do you accept Santa?

 

[river]

I doubt it.

Jan.

then your god is abrahamic based ?

 

[Write4U]

then your god is abrahamic based ?

Strictly speaking, Deism as practiced in most Eastern countries are not monotheistic.

 

[river]

Strictly speaking, Deism as practiced in most Eastern countries are not monotheistic.

what countries ?

 

[Write4U]

what countries ?

Look them up yourself. I'm not going to carry your water

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

You're right. I both reject and deny it.
I can't see him with my eyes, therefore he does not exist

The fool both say in heart, there is no Santa.
If that was in scripture, it would apply to me.
Let's look at some other biblical verses that I would gladly accept.


The wrath of Santa is being revealed from heaven against all the santalessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about Santa is plain to them, because Santa has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world Santa's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

We're it the case that Santa left obvious evidence to the point where I have no excuse for suppression, I would be in denial, which would force me to reject . Just like you are, and do.

Jan

^^^
Neither santa, satan or any god has made itself plain to me. You believing something does not make it true. God is no more made plain to me than santa or fairies or unicorns or a 3 headed crab on a beach in Australia.

IF there is a god, it does not want me to know or it does not care whether I know or it is not omnipotent.

I do not need any excuse for not believing something I see no evidence for. IF any excuse is needed, it is for fools who believe nonsense.

WHAT obvious evidence???

Those several scriptures are great examples of the tricks of con artists. It is fools who have been conned into accepting god nonsense.

If there is some scripture saying I believe in unicorns, it is ridiculous but no more so than what you quote.

Other than what I tell you, you cannot know what I know or believe & neither could the ignorant superstitious primitives who wrote that scripture. That is what is made plain & obvious to you.

What would it take for you to believe something you do not believe? How much good would it do for someone to say it is made plain to you & there is obvious evidence & only fools would not believe?

You may as well tell me it is made plain to me that Donald & Daffy Duck actually exist 333 trillion light years away & only fools would deny it.

<>

 

[Write4U]

what countries ?

Sorry, I did use the wrong word.
I meant to say Buddhism and Daoism or Taoism.

There are about 500 million Buddhists, mainly in the east.

Buddhist Gods & Deities
The Buddha's teachings and Theravada Buddhism are essentially atheistic, although neither deny the existence of gods. In Mahayana Buddhism, however, the universe is populated with celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas who are worshipped as gods and goddesses

and

However, the Buddha considered knowledge important only insofar as it remains practical. He rejected speculation about such matters as God, the nature of the universe, and the afterlife, urging his followers to focus instead on the Four Noble Truths by which they can free themselves from suffering.

http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism

The basic teachings of Buddha are the Four Noble Truths.

1. All existence is dukkha. The word dukkha has been variously translated as ‘suffering’, ‘anguish’, ‘pain’, or ‘unsatisfactoriness’. The Buddha’s insight was that our lives are a struggle, and we do not find ultimate happiness or satisfaction in anything we experience. This is the problem of existence.

2. The cause of dukkha is craving. The natural human tendency is to blame our difficulties on things outside ourselves. But the Buddha says that their actual root is to be found in the mind itself. In particular our tendency to grasp at things (or alternatively to push them away) places us fundamentally at odds with the way life really is.

3. The cessation of dukkha comes with the cessation of craving. As we are the ultimate cause of our difficulties, we are also the solution. We cannot change the things that happen to us, but we can change our responses.

https://thebuddhistcentre.com/text/four-noble-truths

I used the wrong word to begin with. So I feel obligated to correct it and explain some of it.

 

[Write4U]

To the more scientific minded. I find an uncanny resemblance in the following illustration of Buddha sitting in the Lotus with the Mandelbrot fractal as well as the eight petals which are part of the Fibonacci sequence, also known as the Golden Rule.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So you deny that gods exist?

No. Why would you think that?

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.

???

Sorry mate, I do not know what you are trying to show here.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Belief in God is natural?

Yes.

then your god is abrahamic based ?

Let's say you are correct. So what?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You said that if Santa left obvious evidence to the point where you have no excuse for suppression, you'd be in denial.

Given that there is plenty of evidence for you to go find, do you accept Santa?

Yes.
Come December, Santa will be in his grotto, at my local shopping center.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

To the more scientific minded. I find an uncanny resemblance in the following illustration of Buddha sitting in the Lotus with the Mandelbrot fractal as well as the eight petals which are part of the Fibonacci sequence, also known as the Golden Rule.

Wow. Uh.

• There's really no visual correlation between that lotus shape and the Mandelbrot set. That's some seriously wishful thinking, with a hefty dose of paredolia.
• 8 is certainly a common number. It kinda shows up everywhere. Meaning any one place is not cause for alarm.
• The Fibonacci Series is an infinite set of numbers. By definition, one number in an infinite series is not special.
• The Fibonacci Series has nothing to do with doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes.
Come December, Santa will be in his grotto, at my local shopping center.

Perfect.

And, since I followed the exact same Jan-logic to get to Santa as you used to get to God (go back and check - posts 345, 379, 403), it directly follows that God just an actor that poses for statues and stained glass window art.

Santa doesn't really slide down chimneys and live at the North Pole - he's just an idea, sometimes personified at malls.
God doesn't really create the universe and warm our cockles - he's just an idea, sometimes personified in tomes.

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[Write4U]

No. Why would you think that?

Don't you reject the notion that many gods exist and that there is only One God?

Sorry mate, I do not know what you are trying to show here.
Jan.

I was using your argument, that if one is an atheist it is really a tacit admission that God must exist, but that one claims non-belief in such a being.

If I ask if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and your answer is "no", that would make you an "apastafarian".
But according to you reasoning this denial would be a tacit admission that FSM exists, but that you just don't believe in it.

I find that pretty tortured reasoning.

 

[Write4U]

Wow. Uh.

• There's really no visual correlation between that lotus shape and the Mandelbrot set. That's some seriously wishful thinking, with a hefty dose of paredolia.
• 8 is certainly a common number. It kinda shows up everywhere. Meaning any one place is not cause for alarm.
• The Fibonacci Series is an infinite set of numbers. By definition, one number in an infinite series is not special.
• The Fibonacci Series has nothing to do with doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I know..... It was an obscure attempt of humor. But if a theist sees God in everything, I reserve the right to see Fractals and Mathematical aspects to any Mysticism....

 

[DaveC426913]

Don't you reject the notion that many gods exist and that there is only One God?

I was using your argument, that if one is an atheist it is really a tacit admission that God must exist, but that one claims non-belief in such a being.

If I ask if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and your answer is "no", that would make you an "apastafarian".
But according to you reasoning this denial would be a tacit admission that FSM exists, but that you just don't believe in it.

I find that pretty tortured reasoning.

Well said.

Probably less inflammatory than Santa or unicorns.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Don't you reject the notion that many gods exist and that there is only One God?

I accept both propositions.
God Is, and god's exist.

I was using your argument, that if one is an atheist it is really a tacit admission that God must exist, but that one claims non-belief in such a being.

An atheist is a person without belief in God/gods. There is nothing beyond that.
Talk of whether or not God exists, is an atheist issue. As long as a person remains atheist, there is no God. So existence becomes a question, because there are theists.

If I ask if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and your answer is "no", that would make you an "apastafarian".

Yeah! But it's silly.

But according to you reasoning this denial would be a tacit admission that FSM exists, but that you just don't believe in it.

Either you don't understand my reasoning, or you don't want to acknowledge it. If it is the latter, you are simply obfuscation, and evading.

If the flying monster exhibits the same attributes and characteristics of God, then it is God by a different name. If it doesn't, it is irrelevant.

I find that pretty tortured reasoning.

That's okay. You're trying to comprehend something that you are currently unable to make any sense of.

Jan.