God is defined, not described.

[Jan Ardena]

Because your personal beliefs are directly responsible for you being unwilling to put forth an honest argument:

Show where my arguments are dishonest.

There are two possibilities, neither of which are provable:

1] God exists; the believers are right; the skeptics are wrong.
2] God does not exist; the believers are wrong; the skeptics are right.

This is a skeptic, acknowledging that both are possible.

Let's see a believer acknowledge as much.

How do you think it could be possible that God could ''exist''?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

One thing I would like to point out is that the atheists here are at a disadvantage because they are being scrupulously honest in this discussion, whereas Jan is putting things up as truths without any argument or evidence, then digging his heels in whenever he is called out on his unwarranted assumptions.

James, atheist aren't even having a discussion, they are too busy attacking me, the person.
It is as if you are afraid of being called atheists, in the real sense, and try to define it in a more palatable way, that suits your sensibilities. The reality is, you are all without God, which is why you are called ''atheist''.
You can only know about God, from that position. That is you can only comprehend God from what you hear, or read. Then process it from an atheist mindset.

If assertion really made it so, like Jan would have us believe, then atheists could argue that "God Isn't" is the "position we all find ourselves in", and that therefore proves that God isn't real - just like what Jan does on the other side of the argument. They could equally claim that "God Isn't" is an observation borne out of experience, and all that nonsense.

James, that is your position. If you argued that, I would agree with you. Because as far as atheists are concerned, there is no God (God isn't). Just like to a person who is blind, there is no sight, or sight isn't.

The problem for the atheists here is that we're more honest than that. We admit that nobody knows for sure if God is real.

That's very arrogant. The truth is, atheists are without God (hence the term), and that's as much as you will ever know for sure, while you are atheist. What is real for you, is also real for me, but the difference is, you lack something which I do not (if our labels are anything to go by). As we cannot experience anything that we lack, or are without, as an atheist you cannot experience God, so have no idea of what God is, let alone claim that nobody knows that God Is.

And he knows he is being dishonest by making this false claim to certain knowledge.

What ''certain knowledge'' claims have I made, James?
Apart from the observation.

The atheists here all accept that belief in God is pervasive in human society. But there is no logic to Jan's argument that because a belief is common, therefore it is necessarily true.

Firstly. The atheists are all without God.
Secondly. I've never stated that because belief is common, it is therefore necessarily true. Where is this so called honesty you claim?

That is, we admit the possibility that God might exist.

That doesn't mean anything. For atheists, God does NOT exist. Fact.
If you are as honest as you think you are, then admit that. Otherwise, you're simply kidding yourself.

In contrast, Jan simply asserts, without evidence or argument, that the reality of God is not subject to any doubt at all, even though he must understand by now that it is very much susceptible to reasonable doubt.

An atheist will, at best, doubt, because there is no God. That's the part you fail to comprehend. There is no God, as far as any atheist is aware. So you look out into the world to see if God is real (according to what you think is reality), and find nothing that could be called God. Because you cannot find God, you arrogantly assume that it is the same for everyone. Theist, and atheist, are real positions.

In other words, Jan is not being honest when he claims to just know that his God is real. And he knows he is being dishonest by making this false claim to certain knowledge.

Why do you think it is so difficult to ''just know'' that God Is.
Seeing as you are an atheist, couldn't it be that you simply cannot comprehend God?
Why do you have to extend your atheism to theists?
And what certain claim to knowledge have I made?

It could be argued that such a belief is "natural" to human beings. But, nevertheless, we know that belief is wrong.

Belief in God, is natural to human beings, to be more precise.
Eating is natural to human beings, but some things are wrong to eat.
It does not mean that eating is wrong.

Once again, we are forced to conclude either that Jan has such an appallingly bad grasp of logic that he is not properly equipped to have this discussion, or else that he is being knowlingly dishonest in failing to concede that all he has to offer on behalf of his God at the end of the day is his belief and his a priori assumption.

I get you. You're not logical. What you have done is learn about formal logic, to try and use it to defend your weak position. Shame on y'all.

How many times must I repeat. I have offered an observation.
Are you all too frightened to work with the observation, why you think you can override my observation, with the idea that I'm making a claim. If I wanted to make the theistic claim that God Is, I could. But I'm not. So work with it, instead of blocking it.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

James, atheist aren't even having a discussion, they are too busy attacking me, the person.

Because your personality is driving the inconsistent and dishonest nature of your responses.
We feel we need to highlight that, get that corrected, before anything sensible can follow.
It is thus germane to any discussion with you, Jan.

That's very arrogant. The truth is...

The irony is strong with this one!

What ''certain knowledge'' claims have I made, James?

The memory is short with this one!
I refer the gentleman to where not a few letters before he wrote: "The truth is..."

Apart from the observation.

The one you also previously agreed was not a statement of objective truth and merely a statement of what you believe?

Belief in God, is natural to human beings, to be more precise.
Eating is natural to human beings, but some things are wrong to eat.
It does not mean that eating is wrong.

Interesting that you make belief in God analogous to something that is necessary for survival.
One can just as easily say that belief in superstition is natural to human beings.

I get you. You're not logical. What you have done is learn about formal logic, to try and use it to defend your weak position. Shame on y'all.

If you have issue with the logic of an argument, point it out, but lease don't criticise someone for pointing out issues with the logic of your own arguments.
Defend your argument, by all means, but simply saying: "how dare you use logic against me!" is... well... ridiculous.

How many times must I repeat. I have offered an observation.

You have offered an opinion.
Claiming it to be an observation doesn't change that.
It is your opinion of what you observed.

Are you all too frightened to work with the observation,

If you want the discussion to start with your observation as an a priori assumption, by all means set up a thread with that as a requirement.
It is not taken as such here, though, and it is appalling that you try and insist upon it.

why you think you can override my observation, with the idea that I'm making a claim.

You are trying to insist upon your observation being held as true.
This thus makes it a claim by you, even though it is just your opinion.
Seriously, Jan, can you not understand that?

If I wanted to make the theistic claim that God Is, I could.

You have, by insisting that we accept your observation as true without any further need for examination of its veracity.
Now, if only there was a term for such...

But I'm not.

Yes, Jan, you are.

So work with it, instead of blocking it.

You truly think you can state something as an observation and expect others to simply accept it as true???
It is accepted that it is your opinion, your belief, that what you observed is true.
But calling it an observation (not a claim, though, oh, no) and wanting everyone to accept it as true... that's not discussion, that's preaching.
And there are rules against that.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We feel we need to highlight that, get that corrected, before anything sensible can follow.
It is thus germane to any discussion with you, Jan.

You feel the need to defend your weak position.

The irony is strong with this one!

How so?

I refer the gentleman to where not a few letters before he wrote: "The truth is..."

I was talking to James.

The level you will go to, to defend an indefensible position, is truly remarkable.
And yes, that's a claim as well.

Interesting that you make belief in God analogous to something that is necessary for survival.

It is necessary for spiritual survival. But you deny, and or, reject that. Don't you.

One can just as easily say that belief in superstition is natural to human beings.

Thinking is natural to human beings, and so distortions are always possible.

If you have issue with the logic of an argument, point it out, but lease don't criticise someone for pointing out issues with the logic of your own arguments.

You come across as a person who learns formal logic, to use as an instrument to defend your position. I don't regard you as a logical person.
Saying my arguments aren't logical, does not mean they aren't. Do you get it?
If my arguments are illogical, then point it out. And we discuss it.

Defend your argument, by all means, but simply saying: "how dare you use logic against me!" is... well... ridiculous.

Strawman.

Here is a classic example you not being a rational, reasoned, logical person.
Show me where I said, or even hinted at this.
It seems like if I don't say what you require me to say, to defend your indefensible position, you write it in anyways. Then you argue against the stuff you wrote. You don't need me. Do you? You're quite alright holding this conversation all by yourself.

You have offered an opinion.
Claiming it to be an observation doesn't change that.
It is your opinion of what you observed.

Nope. It's an observation. As in, it is something that I observe.

If you want the discussion to start with your observation as an a priori assumption, by all means set up a thread with that as a requirement.

Obviously you don't want to discuss, or you wouldn't include this nonsense a priori assumption approach. Let me know when you are ready to discuss my observation.

You have, by insisting that we accept your observation as true without any further need for examination of its veracity.

It's not a theistic claim. It is the position that causes theists and atheists to become such.
If God wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We know that God doesn't exist as far as you, or any atheist is aware. So it is easy for you to state the other possibility as being God does not ''exist''. But that's like an ugly person stating that being attractive is not all it's cracked up to be.

The fact that one position is ''without God'', explains why there are people who are without God. The fact that people accept, and believe in God, explains the most important position, God Is.

The notion that theism is pervasive in society, is after the fact. I am talking about how, it came to be so. Maybe you want to throw in ''God is made up''. Great! Then show how, who, where, and why it was made it up.
Remember, there are people who do not lack God, like you do.

You are trying to insist upon your observation being held as true.

That's what we all do. Why pick me out?

This thus makes it a claim by you, even though it is just your opinion.

It's an observation. If you don't think it is valid, state why.
Ultimately everything is one's opinion, so I don't even see the point of bringing that up.

But I'm not.

Yes, Jan, you are.

Really! And you call me dishonest?

You truly think you can state something as an observation and expect others to simply accept it as true???
It is accepted that it is your opinion, your belief, that what you observed is true.
But calling it an observation (not a claim, though, oh, no) and wanting everyone to accept it as true... that's not discussion, that's preaching.
And there are rules against that

Where have I stated that everyone must accept it as true?
I believe everyone should work with it, but then again, this is a discussion forum. Is it not? People come with stuff, and others discuss it.
Show where I'm preaching?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

You feel the need to defend your weak position.

Our position isn't actually being discussed.
You have your claims, and you have your strawman.

I was talking to James.

So what?
You asked where you had made a claim of certain knowledge.
If you say "the truth is, atheists are without God..." then you are making such a claim, irrespective of who you are speaking to.
Or are you saying that truth is dependent upon who you're apeaking to?

It is necessary for spiritual survival. But you deny, and or, reject that. Don't you.

"Spiritual survival"?
Rather begging the question, is it not?
You seem to have created for yourself all these reasons for believing, but they all stem from the same a priori assumption that God Is/exists.

Thinking is natural to human beings, and so distortions are always possible.

Reading your arguments and responses, I'm not so sure thinking is natural.
Or if it is, perhaps you are simply "without..."

You come across as a person who learns formal logic, to use as an instrument to defend your position. I don't regard you as a logical person.

Irrelevant.

Saying my arguments aren't logical, does not mean they aren't. Do you get it?
If my arguments are illogical, then point it out. And we discuss it.

I get it, Jan.
I do point it out to you.
Repeatedly.
I explain it you.
Repeatedly.
You simply gloss over it and accuse people of using logic against you (how dare we).

Strawman.

post #47

Nope. It's an observation. As in, it is something that I observe.

And you interpret what you observe, and you believe your interpretation to be true.
What you this claim as an observation is thus simply a belief that you hold that your interpretation is the actual state of affairs.

Obviously you don't want to discuss, or you wouldn't include this nonsense a priori assumption approach. Let me know when you are ready to discuss my observation.

And again you look to dismiss the approach of logic, which has clearly highlighted that everything you argue stems from an a priori assumption that you hold.
And instead of addressing it you want that a priori assumption to be accepted by everyone.

It's not a theistic claim. It is the position that causes theists and atheists to become such.

So you believe, and so you have tried to define atheism to assert.

If God wasn't, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.[/qupte]So you believe.
Why?

We know that God doesn't exist as far as you, or any atheist is aware. So it is easy for you to state the other possibility as being God does not ''exist''. But that's like an ugly person stating that being attractive is not all it's cracked up to be.

So God is a wholly subjective matter?
I thought you had dismissed that notion previously?

The fact that one position is ''without God'', explains why there are people who are without God. The fact that people accept, and believe in God, explains the most important position, God Is.

So your belief leads you to conclude, based on your belief and your a priori assumption.

The notion that theism is pervasive in society, is after the fact. I am talking about how, it came to be so.

No one knows, Jan.
Do you claim to know?

Maybe you want to throw in ''God is made up''. Great! Then show how, who, where, and why it was made it up.
Remember, there are people who do not lack God, like you do.

So let me understand you: if I can't show you how, who, were and why the idea of God was made up you think that it is sensible to conclude that God is therefore definitely not made up?
Seriously?

That's what we all do. Why pick me out?

Because you are asserting it as an a priori assumption that we must all hold prior to discussion, something that should simply be accepted, when it is the very question that people are trying to discuss.
Because you are not actually arguing for why your view should be accepted but instead simply asserting it and saying that we should accept it before moving on.
Because when others claim things as fact they can usually support them when asked.
You can't.
Because when others claim things as fact it is often understood implicitly that they mean that it is merely their opinion, and open for questioning and rebuttal.
You, Jan, are insisting that we accept what you interpret your observation to be, and to accept it without question.

That is why, Jan.
It is not "picking on" you, Jan, it is simply not giving in to your pathetic methods.

It's an observation. If you don't think it is valid, state why.

What the £&@# do you think this entire thread, and every other thread has mostly been about??
[qupte]Ultimately everything is one's opinion, so I don't even see the point of bringing that up.

You are the absolute pits, Jan.
As dishonest as they come.
You are now agreeing that it's all opinion???
You say it is an observation that we need to just work with, you consistently claim as fact that it is the situation we find ourselves in, and now you turn round and say "ultimately everything is one's opinion???
Staggeringly dishonest, Jan.

Really! And you call me dishonest?

Yes, Jan, I do.
Repeatedly.

Where have I stated that everyone must accept it as true?

Post #103
"I'm clearly expressing to you that ''God Is'' needn't be a statement of belief, and I am expressing it as an observation, not a belief. If you want to carry on, you must accept that, because it is first hand."
So we must accept the observation.
And then you say want everyone to "work with it".
So I await your semantic bullcrap that you'll offer by way of explanation.

I believe everyone should work with it, but then again, this is a discussion forum. Is it not? People come with stuff, and others discuss it.

Show where I'm preaching?

Every time you assert something without any support, not even a cogent logical argument to underpin your position, and refuse to listen to rebuttals.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Our position isn't actually being discussed.

I know. Right?

You asked where you had made a claim of certain knowledge.

ATheos = Atheist
A = without, Theos/Theist=God.
Atheist means literally means "without God".
Understood.

If you say "the truth is, atheists are without God..." then you are making such a claim, irrespective of who you are speaking to.

That is the truth. Show where it is not the truth?

"Spiritual survival"?

Yes. What is your problem?

Rather begging the question, is it not

No. Why would you say such a thing?

You seem to have created for yourself all these reasons for believing, but they all stem from the same a priori assumption that God Is/exists.

What assumption?
Oh! You mean my observation.
No it doesn't. It stems from belief in God.

Reading your arguments and responses, I'm not so sure thinking is natural.
Or if it is, perhaps you are simply "without..."

Oh! So you don't regard me as a human being?
Is it because I am a theist?
I wasn't aware discrimination of this sort was allowed on these forums.

Irrelevant.

It's very relevant when you continuously, falsely claim the logical high-ground. To the point of discrimination.

I do point it out to you.

You don't. You only think you do.
So show where I am being illogical.

You simply gloss over it and accuse people of using logic against you (how dare we).

Another false claim. I keep asking you to point out where I am being illogical, and all you come up with is "I have done, repeatedly".
Please put up, or shut up, about my illogic? Thanks in advance.

post #47

So lets recap. You said...

Defend your argument, by all means, but simply saying: "how dare you use logic against me!" is... well... ridiculous.

Obviously it is a ridiculous, desperate accusation. I point this out, and you direct me to post 47.
The only statement pertaining to logic goes thus...

That's why you like to argue, using logic. Because you can throw any factor you like, to slow down the progress, and pretend the issue is unsolved.

So where did I say, and I quote, the quote I allegedly said "how dare you use logic against me!".

That's right, it doesn't exist. You are lying. The decent thing to do, is to apologise.

And you interpret what you observe,

And this reply isn't an interpretation of what you observe to be true?

What you this claim as an observation is thus simply a belief that you hold that your interpretation is the actual state of affairs.

And that's not an a priori assumption. Is it?

And again you look to dismiss the approach of logic, which has clearly highlighted that everything you argue stems from an a priori assumption that you hold.

It's an observation.
To dismiss a logical approach, would require a logical approach to dismiss. You are seemingly incapable of that.

And instead of addressing it you want that a priori assumption to be accepted by everyone.

No I don't. I want everyone to accept it as an observation (which it is), then we can progress with a discussion on whether my observation is valid or not. You seem frightened to make any progress. Why is that?

So you believe, and so you have tried to define atheism to assert.

So what? This is a a discussion forum.
"Atheist" is a word which has meaning. Thus it can be defined independently of atheists. I don't see you object when atheists try to define theism. So why the other way round?

You are the absolute pits,

Thanks for the insult Baldeee.

You are now agreeing that it's all opinion???

I said ultimately, everything we state is an opinion. My observation is no different. What's your problem? Are you of a different opinion?

Post #103
"I'm clearly expressing to you that ''God Is'' needn't be a statement of belief, and I am expressing it as an observation, not a belief. If you want to carry on, you must accept that, because it is first hand."

I'm saying accept God Is, as an observation, not a theistic claim.
It is first hand, because the claim of observation, comes from me. IOW, we needn't debate what was meant.

So we must accept the observation.

Erm... As opposed to it being an a priori assumption, yes.

So I await your semantic bullcrap that you'll offer by way of explanation.

Oh right! You've already made up your mind, irrespective of what I say.

It's sad that it doesn't surprise me.

Every time you assert something without any support, not even a cogent logical argument to underpin your position, and refuse to listen to rebuttals.

Okay, another empty, baseless, prejudiced, accusation. Nothing new there then.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

So where did I say, and I quote, the quote I allegedly said "how dare you use logic against me!".

Good grief, Jan. It's quite clear Baldeee is using "how dare you use logic against me!" as a paraphrase of the approach you are taking, and not a direct quote. It is a rhetorical device.

The rest of your post - well it just rehashes the same crud that you've been coming up with for a while on a previous thread as well. Nothing new, nothing remotely resembling an argument, just bold assertions, demands for words to have the meaning you apply, claims left, right and centre, even if you can't bring yourself to comprehend that they are claims. And all driven by an a priori assumption that you singularly fail to recognise.

Disagreement on the subject matter is not the issue here, and hasn't been for a while, but your attitude and manner are.


So this thread is yet another to die of Janitis.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Good grief, Jan. It's quite clear Baldeee is using "how dare you use logic against me!" as a paraphrase of the approach you are taking, and not a direct quote. It is a rhetorical device.

Of course it is!

The rest of the post - just rehashes the same crud that you've been coming up with for a while on a previous thread as well. Nothing new.

Jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

James, atheist aren't even having a discussion, they are too busy attacking me, the person.

We are addressing the arguments you present, here. The fact that we are calling them out as dishonest is still addressing the arguments you present, here. (We get to do that.)

Show where my arguments are dishonest.

Gladly:

For atheists, God does NOT exist. Fact.

This is false. You yourself have acknowledged that its false.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god

It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods.

You offered these definitions, freely, as part of your attempt to define atheism.


That is fact (one than can be independently verified for all to see: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/my-path-to-atheism-yours-rebuttals.159161/page-7#post-3476831)

Making a statement you know to be false (because you have asserted its opposite) is dishonest.

QED.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Of course it is!

The rest of the post - just rehashes the same crud that you've been coming up with for a while on a previous thread as well. Nothing new.

Jan.

^^^
Is killing threads fun?

<>

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

That is irrelevant.

Whether God is real is irrelevant to you?

I get it. Your assumption that "God Is" is so fixed in your mind that you no longer care whether it is true or not, if you ever did in the first place.

The foundation of theism is belief in God. You already know I'm a theist, so there's nothing more to say.

But you don't stop at "I believe in God". You go on to assert "God Is", as an objective fact. But you can't support that assertion in any way. All you can say is that it is your belief. Playing at distraction by calling it your "observation" doesn't change anything; it remains merely a belief that you can't support.

The less I say about myself, the less likely you are to digress. Unfortunately, you still digress, by keep coming back to what I personally think. It's not important. You only need to know what words mean.

I understand the Rules of Jan's God Game, which demand as a prerequisite to conversation that words mean whatever you want them to mean. I don't play by your rules. They are illogical and inconsistent.

That fact is, you're not even close to what I'm saying. You're too busy trying to mock.

I have now posted several detailed summaries of what you are saying. You have not even contradicted them.

Why don't you cut this crap out, James?

Back at you, Jan. How about you start admitting what you do and don't know?

It is an observation. State why you think my observation is unfounded.

How do you make this "observation" of yours? I see three possibilities.

One is that you just "call" it an "observation" to mask the fact that it's merely an assumption you make, in which case you're merely playing your usual word games.

The second is that you think you observe God with your normal senses, like sight, hearing, touch etc. But if that were the case, you'd be able to share with us some of the objective evidence that your senses provide you. You can't offer anything along those lines. Instead, we get platitudes like "Everything that exists comes from God" and "We are all part of God". Those aren't observations, Jan. They are conclusions that you have come to based on your a priori assumption.

The third possibility is that you believe that you, as a theist, have a special, magical God sense that atheists don't have, and that this magical sense gives you the special power to "observe" your God while atheists are unable to do so. But there's no reason for anybody to believe that you have special powers, Jan. The simpler explanation is that you don't "observe" God at all, but just assume God.

To answer your question: your "observation" is unfounded because (a) it's not really an observation at all but an a priori assumption; and/or (b) because there's no objective truth to your observation that you are able to offer; and/or (c) it's a delusion brought on by the false belief that you have a superpower that atheists don't have.

Existence of God, is something an atheist questions, because God does not exist for them.

Atheists question it because you cannot establish it. You assert God. So go ahead and show us how you know that God is real. What? You can't? And nobody else you know can either? Then God's existence is questionable.

I never think of God as 'existing', like things exist.

I've discussed this red herring extensively, above.

Irrelevant.

It is strange, is it not, that you regard all substantive argument against your position as irrelevant?

Just kidding. I don't think it's strange at all. The truth is: you have no adequate response.

Whatever!

Like I said, no adequate response.

Don't summarise. You're always way off. Then you accuse me of not responding.

If I was way off you would have been able to respond intelligently to the objections I and others have put to you. But you can't, or won't.

Would you say that being born in Australia, you were born into any political situations that were present, irrespective of what you think now?

We're not debating the existence of politicians here.

We are all born in an atmosphere, where we must make a choice, either to accept, or deny, God.

We are all born in an atmosphere where we are free to choose whether to have well-founded or unfounded beliefs. For somebody to accept God, God would first have to exist. And by your own admission, you have nothing to offer that would help to establish that as a fact.

The parameters are therefore ''God Is'' or, one can be ''without God''.

Only in Jan's God Game, where everybody signs up to believe that God Is from the start, or they can't play.

In the real world, the parameters are that some people believe in God and others do not have that belief. The question of belief is a separate one from the question of God's objective existence. It is quite possible to believe that God is real, and for God not to be real, simultaneously. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, like you assume they are.

Not that we make up stuff, and then believe in it.

You didn't have to make up your God from scratch. In your life, you have no doubt been exposed to lots of cultural references to God, whether your God is real or not. But we're not concerned about how you came by your belief. We're concerned here about whether your belief is grounded in any kind of fact.

You don't seem to appreciate how integral 'God' is, in the lives of humans, across all time.

What are you referring to? Please explain in what ways God is integral to the lives of humans. How, exactly, does God interfere in people's lives? What does this God of yours actually do, day to day? How does he pass his omnipotent time?

It seems as though you want to deny that, and reduce God to, some people who made it up, and it has somehow stuck.

That's a logical possibility that you have been unable to refute. What I want is beside the point.

Reject, and deny. That's what your mind is set to do.

My mind is set not to accept things unless there is a good reason to do so. And you can't offer any, it seems.

Why do they profess belief in God? Why are there people who are without God?

There's no space here to go into the many reasons. This discussion has been had by many people, at book length. It's also off-topic for this thread. If you really want to delve into why you believe in God, maybe that's a topic for another thread. Unless, of course, you have some reason to offer that also supports the notion that God is real.

Don't proceed to tell me what I mean. I'm clearly expressing to you that ''God Is'' needn't be a statement of belief, and I am expressing it as an observation, not a belief. If you want to carry on, you must accept that, because it is first hand. If I want to express the belief that God Is, then I will. But I'm not, so work with it.

You think your claim that "God Is" is not a statement of your belief. But neither will you admit it is a claim. So where does that leave you, exactly? If you don't believe that "God Is", and you're not claiming that "God Is" is a fact, then what on earth have you being going on about in this thread and the previous one?

Why is my personal belief so necessary James?
How will it aid these discussions?

If you can be led to realise that your belief is based on an unfounded assumption, then you will be able to have a more honest discussion with atheists. There is much to be gained by stopping pretending you know stuff you don't know, both on a personal level for you, and in terms of facilitating a frank and honest discussion. All this game playing merely stalls the discussion you really need to start having with yourself and with others.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Care to give some examples of what MOST theists would happily admit to?

Would that help you? Why don't you ask some of your fellow theists? At the very least you can find plenty of admissions from theists on the interwebs.

Because man has never created trends that lasts generateration after generation. Also, once you accept "God Is", you understand that man does not have that capability.

Believing something just because it is "traditional" can be a pretty bad reason for believing.

Earlier, I gave you the example of believing that the Sun is a big ball of fire. That belief has lasted generation after generation. It is also wrong. There are innumerable similar examples.

The fact that belief, or lack of belief in God is natural to humans, mean God is more than a concept, or the result of paltry human imaginations.

You just failed Logic 101 again.

If somebody believes in something, it is not necessarily true that the belief is a fact.
If somebody has a propensity to believe in something, it does not mean that the thing that is believed is a fact.

To spell it out for you, because you seem very shaky on this point:

Even if belief in God is natural to humans, as you claim, that says nothing about whether God is real. It justs says that human beings are inclined to believe that God is real.

Is this really so difficult for you? Or are you merely pretending that logic confounds you?

All I'm suggesting is that belief in God is natural to human beings. That makes it important to our self-realisation and spiritual development. Instead of seeking every which way I can, to repress, suppress, and oppress it, like you do.

If we have a natural propensity to hold a false belief, would it not be better to fight it, rather to give in to it?

What is your commitment to reality, Jan, if you have one? Don't you care whether your beliefs are true or false?

That's how you see it now, because you didn't accept God. Now you're atheist, which means "without God"

Atheist doesn't mean "without God" in the sense you mean it. Yet you keep plugging away. It's either play Jan's God Game or quit playing, isn't it?

Why don't you accept God?

God would have to be real in order to be accepted. Can you show that God is real? No? Then what?

You finally accept that your statements are merely statements of what you believe rather than statements of objective truth.

Yes. Just as you've had time to not accept God, and as a result, increased your rejection, denial, and ignorance of God.
I've come to the conclusion that God is, and without God are the two positions all humans find themselves in

Now, pay attention, because this is important. I've even highlighted it for future reference.

If you truly accept that your claims about God are not claims about facts but about your beliefs, then I don't want to see any more unsupported assertions from you of the form "God Is" (whereas "I believe that God Is" is unproblematic.)

On the other hand, I fully expect that you will continue to conflate your beliefs with objective facts, and your behaviour will not change. All signs are that you don't even understand the distinction between objective fact and subjective belief; at least that's the role you've chosen to play in this conversation - the fool who can't understand logic.

If you're an atheist, but hold out that God could be a possibility. That notion is based on God, not theism. It is because the two position exist, why you hold on to that possibility.
A theist doesn't hold the possibility that God Isn't, because there is no need.

Like I said, the atheists in this conversation are honest; you as a theist are not. As a theist who has no objective argument for why God is real, if you were honest you would certainly need to hold on to the possibility that your belief that God is real is mistaken or false. This is why you are dishonest. This is your "two positions" in a nutshell.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

James, atheist aren't even having a discussion, they are too busy attacking me, the person.

Unfortunately, because of your lack of good faith in the discussion, it has become necessary to highlight exactly where and how you are being dishonest. There are only two ways to change that, and the ball's in your court either way.

It is as if you are afraid of being called atheists, in the real sense...

Recognising your little game for what it is, and refusing to play by your biased rules, is not fear.

You can only know about God, from that position. That is you can only comprehend God from what you hear, or read.

Barring magical superpowers, there's no other way to comprehend God, as far as I can tell. You have suggested no alternative. Closing my mind and just assuming, like you do, is not an approach I want to adopt.

That's very arrogant.

Oh yes. How arrogant of me to admit that I don't know whether God is real! This is not something you can manage to bring yourself to admit, even though it is true. I guess that makes you - the one with the certain conviction that he is right no matter what - less arrogant than me.

What ''certain knowledge'' claims have I made, James?
Apart from the observation.

You claim that "God Is". You claim to know that "God Is". You claim that atheists deny God. You make all manner of claims, Jan.

Would you like me to join in pointing out every time you make a claim? Do you know what a claim is?

If, contrary to everything you have written previously, you are willing to flip flop and admit that you have some uncertainty that "God Is", after all, then here and now would be the place to do it. If you're going to do that, you should also apologise for wasting our time, while you're at it.

I've never stated that because belief is common, it is therefore necessarily true.

Weasel words, again? Are you saying simply that you have "never stated" it, or that you actually accept that the prevalence of a belief does not, in and of itself, confirm the truth of that belief? Please be clear.

If it is latter, then why do you repeatedly appeal to the claim that belief in God is "natural", and long-established? Why do you go to great lengths to assert that humans can't believe a false claim over multiple generations?

Again, if you had made this admission earlier you would have saved us all some time and words.

If, on the other hand, it's the former, then you're just trying to weasel out again, and no doubt you'll flip flop back to your original position in your next reply.

That doesn't mean anything. For atheists, God does NOT exist. Fact.

Then God does NOT exist for anybody - Fact. But above, you seemed to agree that believing something doesn't, in and of itself, make it true. What happened to that? Did you flip flop back in the very next sentence you wrote?

An atheist will, at best, doubt, because there is no God.

Are you admitting there is no God now?

Or are we back to your usual "true for you" vs "true for me" relativism again?

Are you interested in whether God is objectively real, or aren't you? Can we discuss that, instead of merely discussing our respective beliefs, or rather the beliefs you assume atheists have?

That's the part you fail to comprehend. There is no God, as far as any atheist is aware. So you look out into the world to see if God is real (according to what you think is reality), and find nothing that could be called God. Because you cannot find God, you arrogantly assume that it is the same for everyone.

How can you find God? By assuming it a priori? Or through normal senses? Or through magical powers?

See above.

Why do you think it is so difficult to ''just know'' that God Is.

How does one come by that knowledge? Tell me. That's what I'm having difficulty with. Is it through normal senses, a magical God sense, or is it not really knowledge at all, but just assumption?

Seeing as you are an atheist, couldn't it be that you simply cannot comprehend God?

I'm a fairly bright atheist. I don't think lack of intelligence or ability is stopping me from comprehending your idea of God. In fact, I managed it just fine when I was a child.

Why do you have to extend your atheism to theists?

I am simply trying to find out if you actually know what you claim you know. If it turns out you don't know, after all your protestations, then it's up to you as to what you choose to do with that newfound insight into yourself. I'm not asking you to be an atheist.

The path to atheism is simple, though. It starts just by asking yourself the question "How do I know that my God is real?" And I mean honestly asking it, and honestly doing your best to answer it for yourself. If what you're posting here is really the best answer you have for yourself, then I suggest you need to consider whether that is sufficient to justify your ongoing belief. This is a question only you can answer for yourself, but from my point of view the case you are making in support of your belief is a very unconvincing one.

Belief in God, is natural to human beings, to be more precise.

Propensity to believe in the supernatural is natural to human beings, perhaps. It's a small hop and jump to your God from there.

I get you. You're not logical. What you have done is learn about formal logic, to try and use it to defend your weak position. Shame on y'all.

You're arguing two contradictory things there: (1) that my arguments are not logical, or (2) that logic itself doesn't work when applied to the question of whether God is real.

Which is it? Either you support logic and say my logic is flawed, or you throw logic out the window and assert that God Is illogically.

If it is really the case that logic does not apply to your God belief - that you admit it is illogical - then we can end the conversation right here. My interest in it is gone once you throw logic away along with honesty.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We are addressing the arguments you present, here.

Where have you addressed any of my points?

This is false. You yourself have acknowledged that its false.

So God does exist, then.

You offered these definitions, freely, as part of your attempt to define atheism.

Notice that despite those meanings, God does not exist as far as atheists are aware. Either that or God does exist. Which one is it?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Whether God is real is irrelevant to you?

Theism is a belief in God. I am a theist, therefore I believe in God.

I get it. Your assumption that "God Is" is so fixed in your mind that you no longer care whether it is true or not, if you ever did in the first place.

My observation of God Is, and without God (you keep forgetting that part), is based on the fact that there are atheists and theists. Why do you persist in distorting that?

But you don't stop at "I believe in God". You go on to assert "God Is", as an objective fact.

I observe that God Is, and without God, are two situations we all come in to.

Playing at distraction by calling it your "observation" doesn't change anything; it remains merely a belief that you can't support.

"Playing at distraction"? What is the basis of this assumption?

I have now posted several detailed summaries of what you are saying. You have not even contradicted them.

I have.
Every time I respond to them. Like now.

"Everything that exists comes from God" and "We are all part of God". Those aren't observations, Jan. They are conclusions that you have come to based on your a priori assumption.

That's not part of my observation, James. But if you want to start a thread about theism, we could discuss it.

The third possibility is that you believe that you, as a theist, have a special, magical God sense that atheists don't have, and that this magical sense gives you the special power to "observe" your God while atheists are unable to do so. But there's no reason for anybody to believe that you have special powers, Jan. The simpler explanation is that you don't "observe" God at all, but just assume God.

I wouldn't describe the difference between atheist and theist, as the theist having special magical powers, although I can see why you would invoke that. It is that the atheist does not accept God, whereas the theist does.

To answer your question: your "observation" is unfounded because (a) it's not really an observation at all but an a priori assumption; and/or (b) because there's no objective truth to your observation that you are able to offer; and/or (c) it's a delusion brought on by the false belief that you have a superpower that atheists don't have.

Thank you for that.

Atheists question it because you cannot establish it.

Really? I think it is because they are without God.

So go ahead and show us how you know that God is real.

That's like an ataste-ist, asking a taste-ist to show sugar is sweet.

Then God's existence is questionable.

For atheists, I agree.

It is strange, is it not, that you regard all substantive argument against your position as irrelevant?

I don't think it is substantive James?

If I was way off you would have been able to respond intelligently to the objections I and others have put to you. But you can't, or won't.

What objections are those James. If we take your response so far. You aren't really addressing my observation. You seem to spend your time telling me it's an a priori assumption that God exists.

We're not debating the existence of politicians here.

I'm not debating the existence of God.

In the real world, the parameters are that some people believe in God and others do not have that belief.

That's how it is in Jan's world, also.

The question of belief is a separate one from the question of God's objective existence.

For an atheist, I agree. Because the atheist does not accept God, and so God does not "exist" for any atheist (hence the term)

It is quite possible to believe that God is real, and for God not to be real, simultaneously. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, like you assume they are.

What do you mean by "God is, or isn't real"

We're concerned here about whether your belief is grounded in any kind of fact.

Why?

What are you referring to? Please explain in what ways God is integral to the lives of humans.

Way too much to just give a simple little answer. That deserves its own thread.

That's a logical possibility that you have been unable to refute.

Please explain how it is.

So where does that leave you, exactly

Making an observation.

If you don't believe that "God Is", and you're not claiming that "God Is" is a fact, then what on earth have you being going on about in this thread and the previous one?

I didn't say I don't believe that God Is. I said that in this discussion, it is a non theistic observation. I also state that there is without God, also an observation. If you want to talk theistic all about God just Being, start a thread.

then what on earth have you being going on about in this thread and the previous one?

My observing how there are theists, and atheists.
It seems you haven't been paying attention after all.

If you can be led to realise that your belief is based on an unfounded assumption, then you will be able to have a more honest discussion with atheists

I think this is an unfounded assumption.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Would that help you?

Yes. Which is why I asked.

Believing something just because it is "traditional" can be a pretty bad reason for believing.

I didn't mention tradition.

Earlier, I gave you the example of believing that the Sun is a big ball of fire. That belief has lasted generation after generation. It is also wrong. There are innumerable similar examples.

The sun is there. Isn't it.
They weren't wrong about that.

If somebody believes in something, it is not necessarily true that the belief is a fact.

I didn't say it was.

If somebody has a propensity to believe in something, it does not mean that the thing that is believed is a fact.

I didn't say it was.

To spell it out for you, because you seem very shaky on this point:

Even if belief in God is natural to humans, as you claim, that says nothing about whether God is real. It justs says that human beings are inclined to believe that God is real.

I think it says more than that.
It is also natural for one not to believe in God, so I accept your point from your perspective.

Is this really so difficult for you? Or are you merely pretending that logic confounds you?

Funny, I was about to ask you the same question .

If we have a natural propensity to hold a false belief, would it not be better to fight it, rather to give in to it?

What is your commitment to reality, Jan, if you have one? Don't you care whether your beliefs are true or false?

I'm not e entirely sure what a "false belief" is.

Atheist doesn't mean "without God" in the sense you mean it.

I think it does.

God would have to be real in order to be accepted. Can you show that God is real? No? Then what?

So if someone cannot show God to you, in a suitable way, means that God is not real.
This is why the literal meaning of "atheist" is so apparent.

If you truly accept that your claims about God are not claims about facts but about your beliefs, then I don't want to see any more unsupported assertions from you of the form "God Is" (whereas "I believe that God Is" is unproblematic.)

James, God Is, and, without God, are observations.
They are not theistic observations.
If you keep insisting that they are not, then we get these types of discussions.

Like I said, the atheists in this conversation are honest; you as a theist are not.

If they were being honest, they would address the observation.

As a theist who has no objective argument for why God is real, if you were honest you would certainly need to hold on to the possibility that your belief that God is real is mistaken or false. This is why you are dishonest. This is your "two positions" in a nutshell.

What is "real"when pertained to God. It's not a theistic term.
Also this not about the theism per say.
The observation can be explored with or without theism or atheism.
It is the backdrop to those positions.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

And round and round and round he goes.
Where he stops, nobody knows.

Maybe we should give Jan a thread of his own, where people can go if they want to play for a while, or just to feed him?

 

[Baldeee]

Good grief, Jan. It's quite clear Baldeee is using "how dare you use logic against me!" as a paraphrase of the approach you are taking, and not a direct quote. It is a rhetorical device.

Indeed it was intended as such.
No different than, for example, when somebody says that someone is sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La la la! I can't hear you!"
Does it mean that they are actually doing that?
No.
It means that what they are doing can be summarised in that manner.
A rhetorical device, as you say.
I shouldn't really have to explain this, though, should I?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Unfortunately, because of your lack of good faith in the discussion, it has become necessary to highlight exactly where and how you are being dishonest. There are only two ways to change that, and the ball's in your court either way.

I doubt what you say is correct.

Recognising your little game for what it is, and refusing to play by your biased rules, is not fear.

Not sure what you mean here.
But being called an atheist, in the literal sense, does seem to be fearful for you.

Barring magical superpowers, there's no other way to comprehend God, as far as I can tell.

That's exactly what I mean.

You have suggested no alternative. Closing my mind and just assuming, like you do, is not an approach I want to adopt.

There is alternate way James, because you do not accept God, be cause for you there is no God.
You are without God,

Oh yes. How arrogant of me to admit that I don't know whether God is real!

You're arrogance come from thinking that your mindset is the absolute standard for all others.

You claim that "God Is". You claim to know that "God Is". You claim that atheists deny God. You make all manner of claims, Jan.

Already explained.

Then God does NOT exist for anybody - Fact.

An atheist perspective.
There is "God Is", and there is " without God".
You display the "without God" section.

But above, you seemed to agree that believing something doesn't, in and of itself, make it true. What happened to that? Did you flip flop back in the very next sentence you wrote?

It is true that an atheist is without God.
What's your problem?

Are you admitting there is no God now?

What do you think?

Are you interested in whether God is objectively real, or aren't you? Can we discuss that, instead of merely discussing our respective beliefs, or rather the beliefs you assume atheists have?

Start a thread, and we can discuss it.

How can you find God? By assuming it a priori? Or through normal senses? Or through magical powers?

First you accept.
If you can't, then you become atheist.

How does one come by that knowledge? Tell me. That's what I'm having difficulty with.

I know you are, but you reject/deny God at every turn.
You can't go forward and backward at the same time.

I'm a fairly bright atheist. I don't think lack of intelligence or ability is stopping me from comprehending your idea of God. In fact, I managed it just fine when I was a child.

Poor angry James!

The path to atheism is simple, though. It starts just by asking yourself the question "How do I know that my God is real?

You're right, it is simple.
Why would you ask if God is real, if God was real?
I suspect that God was never real, because "real" could be anything you consider "real", and if God doesn't match up to that, then God would not be "real".

If for you to accept God,it must be on your own terms, then you're already atheist, because you are without God.

Propensity to believe in the supernatural is natural to human beings, perhaps. It's a small hop and jump to your God from there.

From an atheist perspective, maybe.

You're arguing two contradictory things there: (1) that my arguments are not logical, or (2) that logic itself doesn't work when applied to the question of whether God is real.

It's not an argument , it an opinion based on years of discussion with you.
I think you are yours with information regarding formal logic, then use it as a defensive mechanism.
IMO,I don't think you are a very logical person.
That's it really.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Indeed it was intended as such.
No different than, for example, when somebody says that someone is sticking their fingers in their ears and going "La la la! I can't hear you!"
Does it mean that they are actually doing that?
No.
It means that what they are doing can be summarised in that manner.
A rhetorical device, as you say.
I shouldn't really have to explain this, though, should I?

You quoted me as saying it.

Jan.