This place is a circus as our resident atheists trip over each other in the name of buddhism.
The psychology of atheists and theists
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
So by saying "So far no one can even bring themselves to define, or describe God to the satisfaction of any theist" you're really just saying that you (or any theist) can't accept a definition of God that does not beg the question of God's existence.
What you are asking for from the atheist, therefore, is simply illogical. You are asking the atheist (someone who does not hold the belief that God exists) to come up with a definition of God that requires acceptance that God does exist.
So yes, "Such is the psychological state of the modern atheist" indeed, that they don't adhere to your frankly laughable demands. But thank God not all theists are like you in this regard.
FFS, Jan, no wonder your view of atheists is so screwed up. You expect atheists to have a conception of God whereby God exists (or Is). No wonder you think we're all in denial and rejecting God. But it doesn't work that way, Jan. You don't get to define God as existing (or Is) and insist we all abide by that definition. To atheists God is at best a possibility, at worst an impossibility.
///So I am a theist!
Oh goody!
jan.
Aside from your perpetual sidestepping valid points. If a theist is someone who claims to believe in a god or gods, you are a theist but if a theist is someone who believes in a god or gods, you are not a theist.
<>
No. Only theists are capable of defining God, because choose to accept and believe in God.
Not deny and reject God, like atheists.
The atheist says in his heart, there is no God.
No. I’m asking for a definition that is the subject of any discussion regarding God, not some strawgod conception. If properly defining God seems as though God exists, then maybe you should stop kidding yourself.
Cause you’re a real barrel of laughs, aren’t you Sarkus.
Why aren’t all theists like me?
Do some of them not believe in God?
What? Are you telling me some atheists don’t believe in God?
Nothing so grandiose. I expect them to maintain their atheism. But not defining God properly for fear of losing their atheism is a little extreme, not to mention a discussion killer.
Existence is a part of Gods attributes. That’s just the way it is mate.
Jan.
God is a pixie.
Lots of very different views belong in the category "not theistic".
And the overt Abrahamic theists are, as always on science forums, posting essentially nothing except personal disparagement of scientific points of view.
But they aren't, apparently.
Last edited:
The Abrahamic theist assigns the task keeping track of their own stuff to other people - again.
But listening to Buddhists when they say what they believe is.
Especially when they don't preface it by misrepresenting science and scientific research on a science forum.
To repeat: "- - many Buddhists regard the idea that God created anything as an example of a kind of error or self-delusion one must learn to let go, to not make or do, on the path to enlightenment."
That's a fact, ok?
Last edited:
Ah. Then only atheists are capable of understanding science, specifically cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology and biology. Unlike theists, they do not deny and reject science.
Now that that's settled . . .
Your insult aside, you think only those that choose to accept and believe in something get to define it? And your definition includes the question-begging requirement of existence? So only those that think the Mona Lisa is beautiful get to define it?
Any definition you are happy with presupposes God‘s existence. It begs the question. To restrict discussion to such a definition is to only want to discuss with those that believe. If that is the case, why are you here?No. I’m asking for a definition that is the subject of any discussion regarding God, not some strawgod conception. If properly defining God seems as though God exists, then maybe you should stop kidding yourself.
So you're here for laughs rather than honest and sincere discussion? Would explain much, i suppose, given the laughs your views provide. Inbetween the trolling, that is.
Because some are able to discuss in an honest and decent manner.
No.
You already know that, Jan, despite the thread that you use o try to claim atheists don't exist. I'm merely saying your understanding of atheists is deeply flawed. And laughable.
How about you start by defining God in a manner that does not beg the question of God‘s existence. Can you do that, please? If not then you are answering your own concern. If you Can then maybe discussions with you can progress. So we‘ll wait for you to do so.
So is that a "no, I can't define God without begging the question of his existence", then?
Which is it? Is it a case of defining God in a manner that begs the question his existence, or please provide a definition that doesn't? Can you do that?
If not then that alone is valuable input into the understanding of the psychology of at least some theists. Notably those that don't understand logic enough to either recognise or avoid inappropriate question begging.
You said it yourself - "Only theists are capable of defining God, because choose to accept and believe in God." So only atheists are capable of defining and accepting science, beause they choose to accept and believe in the scientific method. You reject it. Therefore you are incapable of accepting science. By definition.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
There is no need to prove you are right Jan you have already told us many times☺
In any event I must thank you for causing me to at least think about the propositions you present.
I sort thru all you say to see if I can find anything of substance that may suggest anything but an eternal universe is possible and I can only conclude that you have nothing that stands in the way of that notion and I take it as your way of lending agreement to the proposition.
Thanks for your questions re the Big Bang an focus attention on the eternal universe concept.
Your role as a straight man is appreciated.
Your demands for all to define God certainly seems to work, well certainly for me, because when I have thought about defining God it is clear one can not define something which is made up by others...how can I go inside their head and define their delusion...well I can not.
Thanks for helping me see what I now see.
I feel as if I have indeed reached enlightement and know truth will stand above lies and delusion.
Further you demonstrate there is no point in argueing with your syrawman theist ... you take them off very well.
Folk ask why you are here on a science forum and I think I know why.
You have choosen to give up your credibility to cause atheists to realise theist are ...well all the things you demonstrate...I do believe you are indeed an atheist who has realised that to keep up site traffic you need to stir folk into responding to the nonsense you present ... after all one can argue about religion day in day out, and you clearly demonstrate there is much to argue about even if really there is nothing to argue about...so well done.
We really have little to discuss when it comes to science as all theories are for all practical purpose established fact...there is little to discuss you read the works and the papers and you have it all.
I mean the Theory of Evolution is an established fact so what is there to discuss... its all done...it is all settled it is well evidenced it actually gives us something real to understand as to where we came from and how all life is related with at some point an ansestor common to all...yet religion where we have no facts we can argue this and that and best of all no one can be beaten as we are not discussing something that is well established and supported by various avenues of scientific proof say like The Theory of Evolution.
And religion is so packed with problems we have no difficulty in finding stuff to ridicule and avoid riddicule of the presentor.
You certainly have helped me conclude that an eternal universe must be valid.
And I appreciate the fact this site is here.
I spend so much time processing astro images you would not believe...two computers run hot all day every day ...thats why I type on my phone.
But there are these gaps whilst I wait for a process to be completed and in these moments I am able to chat here...now clearly I cant engage in serious conversation as I am brain occupied doing things that require a great deal of concentration ...so it is a nice time out to call in and casually chat about stuff of no real importance...and enjoy a cuppa and a casual chat.
And to chat with someone such as yourself is indeed a privelledge knowing all you are doing to remind folk about the superstition that is religion.
I expect and understand that you must deny that you are indeed an atheist as to do so would bring the game to an end.
Keep up the good work as I think you are doing a wonderful job of pointing out the flaws in religion even if at the expense of your credibility.
Have a great day...
Alex
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
It's amazing how many people go through life not knowing this, but here's Jan to matter-o-factly tell us all about it. It's like he's met God in person. Oh, how they must have both had a good belly laugh at all the dummies who didn't know this particular attribute of God.
The irony here of course, is that you continue as if you don't know this very elemental premise for defining God.
Last edited:
+
I would suggest they are the same, only their ideas of reality differ. What is a person other than a collection of ideas? I have to stop there because my dog wants to play.
gamelord
Registered Senior Member
Both are cult-like, have a superiority complex, limited in thinking patterns, and close-minded to new ideas.
I often found it bizarre, how both religious people and atheist, tend to be equally in disbelief of supernatural reports. And how discussions about sentience with them end up usually going nowhere. And then it all made sense.
I often found it bizarre, how both religious people and atheist, tend to be equally in disbelief of supernatural reports. And how discussions about sentience with them end up usually going nowhere. And then it all made sense.