God is defined, not described.

[Tiassa]

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 would point out, however, that you are presenting a subject deity for consideration; FSM can exist or not, and it speaks nothing of "God".

And, for the record, one of the challenges about obscure attempts at humor↑ is the fact of an audience. There is an obscure bit about a phenomenon by which humans are so socially sympathetic we will invent another person in our heads to share a joke with if there is nobody around. Once your audience is anyone other than this reflection of ourselves, there is precisely no guarantee they understand you.

And, yes, if that secondary echo seems somehow important to the idea of people inventing gods, well, yes, it is.

 

[Write4U]

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

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.

Yeah! But it's silly.

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.

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

I'll let your answers speak for themselves.

To answer an earlier question from you . (your) God = Potential. The difference is that God is indescribable, while the various Potentials (inherent latent abilities which may become reality) have in large part been explained by science.

 

[Write4U]

deleted for duplication

 

[river]

Jan

What are you referring to ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Talk of whether or not God exists, is an atheist issue.

Yep. That's because they can be rational, logical and objective about it.
As you have more than adequately shown*, some theists are incapable of being rational, logical or objective about it.

Which is fine, but it means they cannot discuss it; only preach it.



* most recently in the playing field metaphor, where you are only able to conceive of it with both teams on your side. Being able to only conceive of one's own beliefs is called catatonia.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yep. That's because they can be rational, logical and objective about it.
As you have more than adequately shown*, some theists are incapable of being rational, logical or objective about it.

Which is fine, but it means they cannot discuss it; only preach it.



* most recently in the playing field metaphor, where you are only able to conceive of it with both teams on your side. Being able to only conceive of one's own beliefs is called catatonia.

Your insults highlight your inability to be rational.
You're clearly out of your depth.

Jan.

 

[river]

Jan

What or is god to you ?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Your insults highlight your inability to be rational.
You're clearly out of your depth.

Jan.

Logical dismantling is not insult.
I gave an actual example where you demonstrated a lack of logical thinking.

I can't help it if you say things that are easily refutable. That's on you.

 

[Write4U]

I would point out, however, that you are presenting a subject deity for consideration; FSM can exist or not, and it speaks nothing of "God".

I was merely pointing out the flaw in Jan's argument.

And, for the record, one of the challenges about obscure attempts at humor↑ is the fact of an audience. There is an obscure bit about a phenomenon by which humans are so socially sympathetic we will invent another person in our heads to share a joke with if there is nobody around. Once your audience is anyone other than this reflection of ourselves, there is precisely no guarantee they understand you.

I agree, as an ex entertainer I am well aware of establishing empathy (rapport) with your audience. This is why I qualified my answer with "obscure" which indicates that the humor I experienced in that moment might not be apparent to all.

And, yes, if that secondary echo seems somehow important to the idea of people inventing gods, well, yes, it is.

I am glad we agree on that point. It would seem that almost everyone, from children to elders have such a internal friend.

I have heard named as the "over-soul" by some. To others this is God (or the Devil) speaking directly to them, which can be very dangerous if taken to extreme ends.

Schizophrenia is such an extreme, where the secondary personality takes control, under certain circumstances.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan

What or is god to you ?

Just trying to understand where you are coming from ?

Asking what God Is, to me, is a pointless question.
If you want to know what God is, I suggest you do some research on the subject,
and from an opinion.
Then you'll have an idea of where I'm coming from.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Logical dismantling is not insult.
I gave an actual example where you demonstrated a lack of logical thinking.

I can't help it if you say things that are easily refutable. That's on you.

You're irrational.
You've yet to make a point, let alone logically dismantle anything.

Jan.

 

[river]

Asking what God Is, to me, is a pointless question.
If you want to know what God is, I suggest you do some research on the subject,
and from an opinion.
Then you'll have an idea of where I'm coming from.

Jan.

I have from religions to the cosmos

But I have not yet got a clear picture of your stance on god .

What is the problem of just simply stating your position ? Don't understand why you wouldn't ?

 

[DaveC426913]

You're irrational.
You've yet to make a point, let alone logically dismantle anything.

Jan.

I made my point, as witnessed, logically and descriptively.
The fact that you don't like it, and are now digressing by trying to make this a mud-slinging, is your problem.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Belief in God is natural.

That's quite likely.

Unfortunately you cannot currently experience that.

Why not?

Hence you are lacking.

What am I lacking?

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

I'm listening. I just listened to you presuming God again from the start.

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.

Your "acceptance" of God is not a rational process. It's just you diving in with a belief, for no good reason. At least, that's what I'm getting from you.

Like pots and pans?

Yes, like pots and pans.

Atheism = no belief in God.

OK.

ATheos = without God.
Why is this arrogant, preachy, or wrong?

You're assuming there is a God to be without. That is not part of the definition of atheism.

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

No. That's not it. I've come across many thoughtful, intelligent theists who are quite willing and able to face up to the difficulties with their belief systems. You do not fit that mould.

Personally I think theists are overly respectful of atheists.

Heh. It's dangerous to generalise. You should maybe try reading some theist discussion boards.

I've yet to find an explicit atheist with a clue about God, and theism.

You mean you haven't found an atheist who is willing to buy into your attempted redefinition of atheism? Surprise, surprise.

Really? I think it bothers you, and you have to try and some way to restore the balance.

I think I've been clear about what bothers me.

It is obvious that you're in denial, and that you reject God. Furthermore, I think you know that, but, you are in denial.

No!

5 words...

Like pots and pans James.

It appears we have reached an impasse. Actually, I think we've been there for a while now.

You want to make a special pleading that God is different from everything else there is and so is exempt from having to exist or not exist. I reject that because it's a logical non-starter of a concept. I think you're putting it up only because you know that there's no good evidence that God exists and you need an ad hoc explanation for that.

Here's what I actually wrote...

I could find many instances where what you actually wrote was what I quoted, almost word for word.

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

I have no objection to this wording.

I think atheists have forgotten God.

One minute we're unable to perceive God. The next, we are able to perceive but reject God. And the next we actually have perceived but forget.

Maybe there is no God.

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

I already gave you the context in which it was used, i.e. to refer to a person who was considered insufficiently pious.

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 only okay with I don't believe in God. The others are problematic, for reasons I have explained previously at some length. If you're still unable to see the difference, there's little more I can do for you.

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."

The heart has a magical God sense, then, after all?

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

Stop pretending you know that God exists. It is a futile exercise.

 

[Write4U]

Heh. It's dangerous to generalise. You should maybe try reading some theist discussion boards.

If they let you post at all. You must declare belief in God before you are even permitted to post.

 

[Write4U]

The heart has a magical God sense, then, after all?

LOL... comes to mind an old radio show "The Shadow Knows"

 

[James R]

IOW atheism is what you desire it to be.

It is what it is.

I know God doesn't exist like pots and pans exist.

That sounds like progress. I won't get my hopes up, though.

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

It's okay. We don't need to have that discussion here.

How do you know?
Can you read minds?

No need. I have only to read the first-hand testimonies of people who say "I used to be a believer, but now I don't think God exists", or "I used to think there was no God, but now I believe in Him".

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

It's a fairly random, hit and miss kind of thing, isn't it? Either you're hit by the lucky Godly lightning bolt and - hallelujah! - you're a believer, or you're not.

Lots of theists don't report their belief arising in quite that manner, though. I think that belief can develop gradually via indoctrination, and that it doesn't require the thunderbolt. And I'm not just talking about God belief, here.

No. I mean there is no God for you.

Is this your problem with objectivity vs subjectivity rearing its ugly head again?

First you must accept God.
Then belief can ensue.

What's the difference between acceptance and belief, in this context?

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

I'm frightened that you may live your entire life and never realise that your belief is fundamentally irrational. I'm frightened that there might be nothing I can do to help you. (But don't worry - it's only a mild fear. You have to take responsibility for your own life, after all.)

 

[river]

Jan

First you must accept God.
Then belief can ensue.

What god ? Just any god ?

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said

"Helen 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."

Ever heard of Interoception? Helen Keller was blind and therefore had an entirely different experience of the world.
All her visual senses were internalized .
Her greatest discovery of reality was the feeling of water streaming over her hand, but without visual reinforcement the only way she could expresses her "controlled hallucination" as "feeling with your heart", because she was unable to mentally visualize the water, experienced it by the increase of her heart rate. Hence the connection of feeling with you heart.

Not a persuasive argument.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have from religions to the cosmos

But I have not yet got a clear picture of your stance on god .

What is the problem of just simply stating your position ? Don't understand why you wouldn't ?

I think I've given my stance on God, which is why I don't understand why you ask.

Are you not satisfied with what I write about God. If not, why not?

What have you learned about God, from all the research you say you done?

Jan.