God is defined, not described.
- Thread starter Ted Grant II
- Start date
Because you're an atheist.
God.
You're assuming there is a God, by not believing in God.
Most people don't concern themselves with things that do no exist as far as they are aware.
Insults?
Wow! That's surprising.... not!
You most certainly have.
There isn't, for any atheist.
From your perspective, yes
Atheists either doing their best, pretending, or hoping that their efforts and dedication will lead them, to believe in God. But as I've been saying all along, atheists, are, by their nature, without God.
Cain, the brother of Abel, is a perfect example of such an atheist. He couldn't even recognise God, even though he was in direct contact. What chance does an ordinary atheist have?
That's how you see it, because there is no God, as far as you're aware.
No it's your position.
What context?
It is what it is.
Jan.
Here's another quote that I like;
"The only thing worse than being blind, is having sight, but having no vision. "
Jan.
Last edited:
You can't create other things by having beliefs, and you can't create other things by not having beliefs.
You can't bend spoons with your mind, either - and notice that even if you disbelieve in mental spoon-bending capability, you have not assumed it into existence.
Not true.
Really, seriously, dramatically, not true in the US: a large share of most reasonable people's political concerns are with things that do not exist as far as they are aware - from biological race to vengeful Gods.
Most atheists in the US have to concern themselves with the Christian god, as a matter of personal safety and political consequences.
See: Abrahamic monotheists are not reliably good neighbors. Their beliefs are a concern, especially in that they are not open to reason. As you illustrate.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Or "hearing words, but not listening".
These sensory experiences and how they are processed is exactly what Anil Seth was talking about.
But our very ability for abstract thought requires self imposed controls or we might become susceptible to;
"Hyperactive Agency Detection"
Last edited:
I don't want to start a new thread, but what if I kill myself and I'm not "with God"?
What happens?
What happens?
Jan Ardena:
This would be a good place to end the conversation, I think. It rather neatly sums up your irrationality.
You say you have to first "accept", then later "believe", which implies that belief is different from acceptance. It also implies that there is an intermediate stage, in which a person accepts God but does not believe in God. What does that look like?
Poor me. I'm stuck in a situation where I can't experience God, apparently through no fault of my own. I guess God made atheists that way.
What would I gain from theism? Why do I need theism?
This would be a good place to end the conversation, I think. It rather neatly sums up your irrationality.
Your belief certainly exists, and other believers exist, regardless of whether God exists. As I said previously, my interest lies not so much in your God, but in why and how you believe what you believe.
Maybe one day we will discuss whether God is objectively real. I think we have amply covered the differences in subjective belief, but you seem unable to go beyond that.
It would be more useful if you could talk from your own perspective, rather than telling me what you think mine is all the time. You're very cagey about what you actually believe. Why is that?
Is that what you think - that atheists are actually engaged in a wistful search for God, even though they don't realise it? You don't really understand atheism at all, do you? I think it's because you're unwilling to squarely face the question of whether God exists. It's a mental block for you, a turning away.
What happened to free will, if we're all pre-determined to be theists or atheists? Is it just bad luck if you're an atheist, then?
Please don't confuse my summation of your position with my own opinion on the matter. In my opinion, other theists typically give better reasons for why they are theists than you are putting forward here. For example, some claim to have a direct experience of God, or direct communication with God. Others claim to have witnessed a miracle that convinced them. Yet others say that their belief in God has improved their lives in some measurable way. In contrast, your explanation for being a theist is that you were just predetermined to be one, "naturally", by God. That is, you belief without reason.
I'm asking what the difference is between somebody "accepting" God and somebody "believing in" God. Is there a difference?
You say you have to first "accept", then later "believe", which implies that belief is different from acceptance. It also implies that there is an intermediate stage, in which a person accepts God but does not believe in God. What does that look like?
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
You could always convert just before you kill yourself....(bad joke....
)As I understand it, you'll be housed in a place they call "limbo"
I asked the question because I'm a bit angry, thought some different avenue of argument might serve better, and wanted to take out some frustration.You could always convert just before you kill yourself....(bad joke....
As I understand it, you'll be housed in a place they call "limbo"
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This is an illogical and self-contradictory response, which cannot be attributed to the atheist.
An atheist does NOT "not believe in God". An atheist believes there IS no God.
At the risk of spelling out the obvious, compare:
You're assuming there is a mermaid, by not believing in mermaids.
You're assuming there is a Bigfoot, by not believing in Bigfoot.
You're assuming there is a teapot in orbit around the Sun, by not believing in a teapot in orbit around the Sun.
You're assuming the Earth is 6000 years old, by not believing the Earth is 6000 years old.
Jan fails Logic 101 yet again.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I totally can identify with you frustration, but it is difficult to use any form of logic with a "hardened mindset".
And unfortunately, it is impossible for atheists to perform an atheist "exorcism" ritual.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I am pretty convinced that even Jan is not serious about his own propositions anymore.
No one says this with a straight face. Even Jan is not so foolish that he did not see your response coming a mile away (especially since this is not the first time this logic has been pointed out to him.)
Jan was surely sincere once, but I think he's changed his PVC*. For quite some time now he has simply satisfying himself to see how long he can keep us responding. That is the textbook troll gambit. He will not stop; he has no reason to.
Why is this thread not Cesspooled?
* Personal Victory Condition
P.S. And in case anyone thinks I'm just slagging him cuz I want to, I assert that I have been and more involved in discussion - and thus more patient with him - than almost anyone else on SciFo. So I kinda feel like I've earned it.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
IMO, it just comes down that Jan identifies Original Causality as an Intentional Act by an Undefinable Being or Condition.
He has no clue about the properties of this Condition, but for convenience has named it God.
I believe he thinks that Humans are not a naturally evolved species, but uses the biblical expression from Genesis
On close reading this is really a condemnation of mankind, because like all living things we must eat from the tree of life, in order to stay alive. What does God want us to do? Starve ourselves to death? It's all very confusing.......
p.s. In this little sentence God admits that He himself has knowledge of good and evil, just like us. By his own words God should not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
It gets curiouser and curiouser.......,,
Jan, can you provide an answer to this cunundrum? Do you still want to believe in a Being that wants you dead?
He has no clue about the properties of this Condition, but for convenience has named it God.
I believe he thinks that Humans are not a naturally evolved species, but uses the biblical expression from Genesis
On close reading this is really a condemnation of mankind, because like all living things we must eat from the tree of life, in order to stay alive. What does God want us to do? Starve ourselves to death? It's all very confusing.......
p.s. In this little sentence God admits that He himself has knowledge of good and evil, just like us. By his own words God should not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.
It gets curiouser and curiouser.......
,,Jan, can you provide an answer to this cunundrum? Do you still want to believe in a Being that wants you dead?
Last edited:
In its widest sense, atheism is simply the not believing that God exists.
This is commonly called "weak atheism".
If one goes further and believes God to not exist, this is "strong atheism".
Since one cannot "believe in" something that one does not also think exists, all atheists do not believe in God.
There's certainly no implication or assumption inherent within the term "atheism" that God exists, though.
This is something Jan is trying to assert about atheism by referring to the archaic meaning, when the term was a derogatory term used by those who did believe, and thus the implication existed.
Jan does not want to use the term in its modern usage, and thus is being dishonest.
If you're an atheist, as WRITE4U said, it means there is no God. You cannot experience something that doesn't exist.
"The fool doth say in his heart, there is no God. "
Not that God made you an atheist.
Another thread perhaps.
Theism comes naturally to theists. Theism is what there is. From that, you advance, or retreat.
We already agree that God doesn't exist in the way pots and pans exist. But if you really want to develop you comprehension of how God exists, you should study scriptures. That's part of accepting God, or even the possibility of God. Note you don't have to believe.
Atheists who become religious.
Eventually they tend to end up like yourself. There atheism becomes more embedded, to the point where even the possibility of God becomes almost intolerable.
I understand that for an atheist, there is no God. What more is there to understand?
As for "existence", we've already covered this. God does not exist in the way things exist, which is why it is an atheist issue.
It is due to free-will that you are an atheist. It is the person that declares there is no God. Theist do not go around asserting God exists. Unless they are discussing with atheists. Because existence is an atheist issue.
I am a theist. What more do you need to know?
What do reasons for being theist have to do with this thread.
As far as I'm concerned I've told you that theism is natural to human beings.
That you want to add whether God actually exists or not, is a separate issue.
An atheist issue.
You'll have to try and work that out, as it is what you see, as opposed to the simple reality of it.
Jan.
If I obsess about it, yes.
You don't find people who do not believe in mermaids, arguing, debating, discussing, becoming angry, insulting, go crying to the government, with people that do believe in mermaids. They just get on with their lives.
Jan.
People who believe in mermaids aren't trying to have laws passed dictating what is taught in the science classes of the public school system.
I agree with you. You should tell that to James, Sarkus, and Baldeee.
From your perspective what I said could be construed as being illogical. But there is another perspective, God Is. Within the combined perspectives, it is not illogical.
Jan