What Do People Know About What They Pretend to Discuss?

[iceaura]

But Iceaura, your assessments are unreliable.

So you say.
They seem to have held up pretty well, over the years. Maybe show, not tell?
Look: You don't like the arrogance, the simplistic nature, the know-it-all attitude among people who don't know stuff others care about. That's reasonable - cocky little twits mocking their intellectual betters put people off. But that doesn't make them wrong.

Fundie theists do not earn respect and deference from the fact that somewhere on the planet there are sophisticated theologians and profound theistic thinkers.

Sure, this isn't quite like the time you tried to blame me for writing your own post, but, still, this bigotry you show is ridiculous.

Never happened. (You were in some kind of mental breakdown over Clinton's miserable candidacy, iirc).
I'm going to take your assessment of "bigotry" as similarly sourced.
And similarly motivated.
And similarly full of shit.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I've said on more than one occasion that there is no point in trying to convince someone to believe in God, they can only come to that position for themselves, as belief in general, is something that is included in your life's experience.

That's interesting, because it would seem not to apply to just about any other belief. That is, if I wanted to convince somebody that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius, for example, and they were resistant to the idea, then I don't think there would be no value in trying to convince them about the truth. Sure, in the end they might, obtusely, decide not to believe evidence put directly in front of them (such as, in example, a physical demonstration with a beaker of water, a stove and a thermometer). In that sense they could "only come to that position for themselves", it is true. People can choose denial. But that doesn't mean there's no point trying to convince them of the truth, especially when it's a truth that is important in some way (more important than the boiling temperature of water, maybe).

If God is real, then I would say it's probably one of the most important things somebody can believe. But you're saying that there's no point in trying to convince anybody that God is real? Instead, they must be left to their own devices?

This might be your own approach. I don't know. But it is demonstrably not the approach that the religious typically take. Religious parents certainly take time trying to convince their children that God is real. So do priests of all stripes. So do evangelists. So do writers of religious texts. It seems to me that all these people disagree with you that there is no point.

Another nonsense statement. No one possesses theism, unless it's the kind of theism you had. But that's not theism.

No? Then why didn't you say what theism is, there?

We cannot choose what we believe, belief is something that builds over time, and experience. You are mixing acceptance, and belief. They are not the same thing.

Accepting that something is true is indistinguishable from believing it is true.

Because you know me, and more importantly, you know what is real, and what is to be real for others?

I know enough to know that imagining you have some kind innate knowledge of God is not real. That is, the imagining is real, but the thing imagined is not.

Or rather, to put it more precisely, I know that there's no objective evidence that the thing imagined is real.

James, all you seem to have is a whole bunch of information, that has nothing to do with reality, as it is lived, experienced, and observed by all living entities. Which you then try and pass off as real knowledge. Pathetic!
Not to mention arrogant.

The information I rely has everything to do with reality and observation. It has very little to do with your inner, subjective, lived experience.

There are two separate questions here, by the way, and they should not be confused. Question 1 is: is God real? Question 2 is: why do you believe in God? It does not follow that if question 1 is answered in the affirmative that we don't need to ask question 2 any more.

My bad. It was off the top of my head.

Is this the closest you come to an apology? If so, at least it's a start.

But surely, if there was a God, you would still be a theist. Right?

No, that doesn't follow at all. Whether I'm theist or atheist depends on what I believe, not on whether there is a God. Same for you. Logically, one is a question about my subjective mental state, while the other is a question about objective reality. So often, the things you say make it clear that, for you, the subjective is hopelessly confused with the objective. This is why you think that whatever you believe must be real. Understand?

You have said, that just like me, you were once a theist.
Meaning, you once believed in God.

Now, you are no longer a theist. Meaning you no longer believe in God.

Yes.

If you believed in God, at one time, and now you don't believe in God. That could be for one of two reasons.
You don't want to accept God, or, your belief was in vain.

That sounds fair enough. I take it by "in vain" you mean my belief was based on something that turned out to be false.

Meaning that God either didn't exist, or there was no God for you to believe in.

I don't see any meaningful difference between those two things, unless by the second you mean that I decided I didn't like the particular conception of God that I believed in. Is that what you meant?

You have stated that your reason for not believing in God, is due to a lack of evidence for God.

Yes. That would be my number 1 reason. I can't think of anything more relevant.

Now if you were a theist at one point, then like you have said in the past, you were just like me, and all theist.
So that means either, all theists, being just like you, still believe in something, that for you there is no evidence of (regarding existence).

No good evidence. Theists often regard their own subjective feelings as evidence. Some of them regard things such as the supposed "revelations" in scripture to be evidence. Some regard particular experiences they have had as evidence. Some regard the very existence of the universe as evidence. But none of these things constitutes good evidence for the existence of God, not such as to justify belief in such a thing.

You accuse me of being deluded. That is, I prefer ''happiness'' over ''reality''. IOW, I am oblivious to reality, especially when it comes to my (what can only be) false belief.

My assessment is not that you're oblivious to reality, but rather that you have trouble distinguishing between your own mental states and reality. Actually, we all have some trouble with that, so it's not so much that you have a unique problem. It's more that you're at a particular point on the spectrum.

With all that in mind. You now claim to be asking for evidence of God.
So why ask for evidence, when you were once, like all theists, a theist. A person who believed in God?

There are lots of reasons to ask for evidence. Why I ask you is that you tell me you have good evidence. Naturally, I'd like to know what it is you think you have. However, to date it has proved to be an impossible task to get a straight answer from you on that.

More generally, asking for evidence is a means for focussing attention on a question that would seem to be of the utmost relevance in examining any kind of belief: determining whether it is reasonable (i.e. based on reason) to hold the belief at all. You think something is a fact. On what basis do you think that? It's a straightforward question. If you haven't already asked yourself, you should.

Sorry mate, but you were a theist. Meaning you believed in God. Okay?
Now you are no a theist, as you no longer believe in God.
Is that not a positive move.

You're twisting the words. The statement under consideration is whether I am positive (i.e. certain) that God does not exist. Answer: I am not "positive" in that respect.

Going with the twist, though, if you're asking me whether I am "more positive" (i.e. more comfortable) about my beliefs now that I'm an atheist, compared to when I was a theist, then the answer to that is that atheism was a "positive move" for me. If you'd like to discuss why some time, we could, but it's mostly about being morally consistent with oneself and avoiding cognitive dissonance (i.e. trying to believe contradictory things simultaneously).

Theists always doubts about things to do with God. It doesn't mean they stop believing in God. That's not how it works mate. But if you was a theist, you would know that.

Yes, I know from experience exactly how it works. Doubts get rationalised or brushed under the carpet, in the service of happiness, essentially.

So my questions to you are...

Why did you stop, believing in God?
And why do you question theism, or belief in God?

Answered above (and previously), I think.

 

[Tiassa]

Never happened.

Please observe:

Yeah, whatever you say, Iceaura:

Followed by a quote from you. That from the lecturer on irony?
Your posts really are, as you illustrate by quoting not me but yourself, pretty much as worst described.

My memory actually softened them a bit, made them less obviously what they are. So thanks for the reminder - you've been posting like that a long time now, lots of stuff like that, and so I don't have to worry about somehow failing to grant due consideration for whatever validity you have buried in them. Dig it out yourself.

Note the part of your response where you say, "Followed by a quote from you", and then, also, "quoting not me but yourself".

When we look back to the post you were responding to—

The stalkers and guns were and are you being worthless and confused and silly, in other threads. The way to set them aside would be for you to apologize for being an idiot and a jerk, and never mention them again. I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, whatever you say, Iceaura:

The people advocating gun regulation are foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda - is that really the point you want to make? Well, you wouldn't be alone - it's been made, inadvertently to be sure, over and over, on TV and in the newspaper and right here, as we hear them tell us about the nature of those who do not agree that guns are useless and therefore should be removed from private hands by whatever means necessary and on whatever justification is available.

One reason the eminently sensible laws mentioned are opposed by so many, not just the NRA, is that they don't trust the source. Amy Klobuchar is not a terrible Senator, but if not watched she will make bicycle helmets mandatory, canoeing without actually wearing a lifejacket illegal, fireworks available only to licensed professionals, that kind of thing. The term "Nanny State" might have been coined for her utopia. And that poisons the well.

(Iceaura, #3204234/32↗)​

Yeah, foul little gits with an authoritarian agenda of keeping guns out of the hands of some of the documentably most dangerous criminals in our society.

—we find a testable assertion in the form of a quote of two paragraphs, and a link to the post from which those words are excerpted. That post↗ was, in fact, written by you. That is to say, you wrote the post you described as a quote from me.

So, yeah—

(You were in some kind of mental breakdown over Clinton's miserable candidacy, iirc).
I'm going to take your assessment of "bigotry" as similarly sourced.
And similarly motivated.
And similarly full of shit.

—like I said, your assessments are unreliable.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Then let's both of us indulge in that.

There are some signs that you intend to change your approach. We'll see how it goes. In turn, you will very likely find that how I respond to you mirrors in some ways how you respond to me.

I didn't give one thought as to how the chicken got into that KFC bargain bucket.
My reasoning was... hmmmm!

That's not reasoning. That's just gut reaction, based on your own desires.

James, while I accept and believe that God Is, or exists, I'm not claiming it.
The onus of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I'm not making any claim.

What is it every time you write "God just Is" or similar, if not a claim to truth?

Are you saying this is just your subjective belief? If so, why do keep banging on about it? And why are you so concerned if atheists "deny" the belief?

I operate on the assumption that for you, there is no God. I don't care whether you can prove it or not.

Part of my ongoing beef with you, which you just don't seem to understand, are those two words "for you". Why do you keep inserting them? In fact, why do you think it is appropriate to express my belief (or any atheist's belief) this way? Why not just say "I operate on the assumption that you don't believe in God?"

It can only be because you believe that your form of words holds meaning over and above the form of words I've just suggested. What is that meaning?

I mean, you should be beyond asserting that "atheists think there is no God" by now - or at least beyond "James R thinks there is no God" - after all the discussions we've had, so it can't be that, can it?

If that's what you get from our years of discussion, then there is no point in discussing this topic any further.

Honestly, I don't see any better argument coming from you. Take the argument "God is real because the scriptures say so", for example. Boil it down and it reduces to "Jan believes the scriptural writings, therefore God is real." Or how about "God is real because nothing would exist without God"? Boil it down and it reduces to "Jan believes that the universe is contingent on God being real, therefore God is real".

I'm not trying to mock your position. This is my honest assessment of it.

Only from your perspective James.

Not only from my perspective, obviously. Other atheists here hold the same opinion. The other theists haven't commented, to my knowledge.

Do you think you and I could have a conversation without all this stuff.
Just chill, and talk mutually about stuff.
Or are you always going to try and prove me wrong.
I know I could.

We'll see how we go. I'll try to hit the reset button a bit if you will.

I respond to atheist negativity, and atheists wildly attack theists.

Painting yourself as the victim is a bit disingenuous of you, Jan. Recall entire threads that you started whose sole aim was to attack atheists and atheism. You have even spent an incredible amount of time and effort here trying to redefine the very word "atheist" to suit yourself, in opposition to how atheists choose to define themselves. In other words, you've tried to set up a straw man version of atheist for yourself to knock down. If that's not a wild attack, what is?

If you've decided to put that behind you now, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and say "I'm glad you're past that."

If God exists, then God exist for all living entities, not just theists.
Atheists deny God, IMO. So God does not exist for them, in the same way a girl's first cheating boyfriend does not exist, now that she is married to her dream guy, with a beautiful house, and a bag of children.

Okay. So your first sentence here seems to say that you think that God either objectively exists or he objectively does not exist. I'd like to say I'm happy you recognise this, but you've made essentially the same statement many times before, then have gone on with the "God doesn't exist for you" business, as you do here. In other words, you move immediately from a superficial examination of objective reality to concentrate almost entirely on subjective beliefs. I'm not convinced that you haven't lost sight of the question of objective truth by the time you write your next sentence.

What follows here is "Atheists deny God, IMO". Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. It's understandable that you think God obviously exists, so non-believers must be in denial.

But then we get "So God does not exist for them". This is a statement about the subjective reality - that is, a statement about the mental state of the atheist, from your perspective. Their mental state is, supposedly, "God does not exist". The boyfriend story is useful, because it shows that you think of atheists as having forgotten that God exists, on purpose. Or, in other words, you think that atheists have made a choice to pretend that God doesn't exist, in the same way that the girl pretends the ex-boyfriend doesn't exist, all the while knowing that really, the ex-boyfriend is out there somewhere in the objective world, no matter how much she tries not to think about him.

The problem here is that this is not the atheist mindset. Many atheists, if you ask them, will tell you - as I have told you - that they don't think that "God does not exist". Rather, they think that "God probably does not exist" or, more often, that "there's nothing objective that strongly suggests that God exists". Moreover, if you ask the girl whether she acknowledges that the ex-boyfriend is out there in the world, she might conceivably say something like "He's out there somewhere, but I want nothing to do with him. He's dead to me." In contrast, if you ask an atheist whether he acknowledges that God is out their in the world, he will never say "I know God's out there, but he abandoned me so I want nothing to do with him. For me there is no God." Those are not the words of an atheist, but of a theist who is unsatisfied and angry with his God.

To summarise: if you think that atheists are really just disillusioned theists, deep down, then you don't really know anything about what it is to be atheist.

You believed in God, which means you had some knowledge of God.
How did you obtain it?

Same way you obtained it. Parents, teachers, friends, religious texts, preachers, cultural immersion, etc. You might like me to add something like "private revelation", and if I was still a theist I might be inclined to add that, too. These days I know that such "revelation" is to be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Why? Because your position would be justified?

Because I have no problem at all with you believing whatever you like about imaginary beings. It's your life to live. I'm only concerned if you start pretending it's all real outside your head.

The problem is that, even after years, I don't think you're really capable of separating the notion of God's objective existence from God's subjective existence in your mind.

Would that be exclusive to me, or to every theist?

That is an excellent question, and one I haven't really given a lot of thought to.

Tentatively, I would suggest that it might be common to every theist, now that you mention it, although present to different degrees in different theists.

For example, some theists would say "I believe in God, but I know I can't prove that God is real", while others would say "I believe in God, and there's good evidence that God is real". In the latter case, it could be that the theist doesn't understand what good evidence is (so is mistaken), or it could be that the theist thinks that subjective belief counts as good evidence in the real world.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

It doesn't work like that with everything.
You make lots of claims. You have done in this thread alone.
It would be pointless to ask you to prove every single claim you make.

It's important to try to prove (or disprove) important claims, though, isn't it?

Sometimes it is better to go with the assumption, as you would learn more about the claim.

Wouldn't it be better to keep an open mind, rather than going with an assumption that might later turn out to be wrong?

This is a discussion, not a debate, or a court of law. Enjoy the discussion.

Even in courts, there are different standards of proof. Important things (e.g. a criminal trial in which a person's liberty is at stake) demand a high level of proof (beyond reasonable doubt), whereas less important things (e.g. civil cases) might settle for proof on a balance of probabilities.

How important is God?

The position of theism is belief in God. God Just Is.

Which necessitates that God exists.

It seems to be a natural assumption, that can be understood by those who accept God.

I disagree. As you know, I think there may be a human inclination to believe in supernatural beings, including God. I also think this inclination can be understood both by those who believe in God and by those who do not believe.

We are not spiritually separated from God, James. But we can separate our minds from God, by engaging in activities that serve our senses.

That's your belief.

A theist only thinks about God's existence, in the company of those who question it. Otherwise there is no need.

That's what religions teach, certainly. But they have a certain vested interest, wouldn't you say?

You tell me if God exists.
You claim that you were a theist, just like I am.

I don't know if God exists. If he does, he isn't leaving any unambiguous signs. When I was a theist, I used to believe he exists, just like you still do.

You were a theist, so you say.
Does God exist, or not?

Nobody knows. Not you, not me.

Did God exist, when you were a theist?

Subjectively, yes. Objectively, not as far as I can tell; it's an open question.

This one is pretty close, focusing on the sub-culture.

That's what I thought.

I assume this is rhetorical. Yes?

I'm suggesting one of a range of possibilities. Yes, read it as rhetorical if you like.

IOW, this is surface stuff. You really are angry, and it's not at me. Like Tiassa said, or I think he said, you need to take your frustration out on someone, and you choose me. Probably because you think I'm an easy target. What do you think?

I think that, understandably, I get frustrated from time to time by your tactics in discussion, which I see as less than open and honest. Angry would be the wrong word to describe how I feel about that. Annoyed comes closer, but it's not the primary emotion. A wise man once said its impossible to be angry with somebody if you understand them. I try to understand people.

You might think I'm angry with God. If that's what you think, you're very much mistaken. It's hard to get angry with a chimera.

 

[pluto2]

Satanism is the only religion that makes sense to me because there really is a lot of evil and cruelty in this world.

The other religions are based on lies on top of lies and lying is morally unethical no matter if you are religious or not.

 

[spidergoat]

Satanism is the only religion that makes sense to me because there really is a lot of evil and cruelty in this world.

The other religions are based on lies on top of lies and lying is morally unethical no matter if you are religious or not.

I find Satanism to be unethical as well, as it encourages selfishness over collectivism.

 

[iceaura]

Note the part of your response where you say, "Followed by a quote from you", and then, also, "quoting not me but yourself".

Which you, having taken the whole thing out of context, misread. And repeatedly refused to re-assess.

—we find a testable assertion in the form of a quote of two paragraphs, and a link to the post from which those words are excerpted. That post↗ was, in fact, written by you. That is to say, you wrote the post you described as a quote from me.

You misread the entire conversation.
And with an agenda, apparently - you were in a mood, as they say. You didn't like my description of the less reasonable authoritarian arm of the "gun control" proponents, you didn't like the language, and you didn't like the implication that it applied to some folks you approve of. You don't like any of the political positions of people like Clinton and Klobuchar (and that connection is yours) described that way - you were tying yourself in knots trying to package all criticism of the great and wonderful Clinton into some kind of misogynistic bs.
My guess is that the overlap with the quietly competent female Klobuchar and the machismo dominated gun control issue and the term "nanny state" fed voltage into a weak fuse.

Meanwhile, your conclusion now - that my assessments are unreliable, in general or in any other context - would not follow anyway.

But that's digression - what's your point here? Am I supposed to refrain from making my assessments, because they are mine? Are your assessments and attacks and poorly reasoned criticisms somehow rehabilitated, if mine are unreliable?

The question is whether the areas of ignorance displayed by the shallow atheists under fire here are relevant to what these atheists - and the theists they are joined with - are "discussing". It seems to me that they are not.
That the people doing the pretending are the ones invoking theological subtleties and complex historical heritage and matters of serious scholarship.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's not reasoning. That's just gut reaction, based on your own desires.

Nevertheless it is the basis of my reasoning.
Should I be questioned on the moral aspect of my actions, then I will seek to defend it. That is where the reason would come in.

What is it every time you write "God just Is" or similar, if not a claim to truth?

It is my fundamental position. I believe in God.
Your fundamental position is you don’t believe in God. We have to begin from that position.

And why are you so concerned if atheists "deny" the belief?

I’m not concerned about that. As I’ve said numerous times, I accept their position. It’s nothing new.

Part of my ongoing beef with you, which you just don't seem to understand, are those two words "for you". Why do you keep inserting them? In fact, why do you think it is appropriate to express my belief (or any atheist's belief) this way? Why not just say "I operate on the assumption that you don't believe in God?"

I am coming at this from my foundational perspective as a theist. I see everyone as an individual.
If we’re talking about “atheism”, then we can generalise, because all atheist do not believe in God, but not all atheists, or theists, for that matter, are not the same.

I mean, you should be beyond asserting that "atheists think there is no God" by now - or at least beyond "James R thinks there is no God" - after all the discussions we've had, so it can't be that, can it?

I’ve said in this thread that, atheists do not necessarily believe that there is no God. But despite what they believe, or don’t believe, there is no God for the atheist.

It stands to reason, because, if there was a God, and the atheists knew it. They would either believe in God, or they would continue being atheist.

Honestly, I don't see any better argument coming from you. Take the argument "God is real because the scriptures say so", for example. Boil it down and it reduces to "Jan believes the scriptural writings, therefore God is real."

That’s not an argument I’ve made.
Scriptures allow us to develop understanding of ourselves, God, and outer connection to God.
It is already a forgone conclusion that God Is.
It is a foundation.

One doesn’t come from being an atheist, read a scripture, and become convinced there is a God.
One is either a theist, or an atheist who is prepared to lay down, what he realises, is his foundation, and accept what is being said.
Now, that does not mean he has to believe, to believe. That would be false, because we cannot choose what we believe. Belief develops, and changes in accordance with every aspect of our life experience.

The fried chicken is delicious, so overtime, if confronted, realising the chickens do suffer, so I can enjoy, I could rationalise it, and come to believe my rationalisations. Or I could ignore all aspects of moral behaviour regarding the sufferation of animals, and continue eating them in good faith.

Or how about "God is real because nothing would exist without God"? Boil it down and it reduces to "Jan believes that the universe is contingent on God being real, therefore God is real".

“God is real” is a forgone conclusion. Some accept and believe, some don’t.
If you believe there is no evidence for God, that could be what forms the basis of your atheism.

When you ask for evidence of God, you are asking from an atheist, foundational perspective. Not that there IS no evidence for God. Like you, I reply from my own perspective.

Not only from my perspective, obviously. Other atheists here hold the same opinion. The other theists haven't commented, to my knowledge.

One can only comprehend revelation , if one is already in a position to comprehend it. It is the fundamental position that allows, or doesn’t allow it to happen.

When I interact with people, I see what I think it is they’re revealing from a psychological perspective. When a trained psychiatrists interacts, they see what I see, and a whole lot more.

So revelation is both objective, and subjective. You can’t have one without the other. But upon receiving any data, information, or revelation, it can only be believed overtime, and/or experience.

Painting yourself as the victim is a bit disingenuous of you,

I don’t know if I would refer to myself as a “victim”, but there has been some unpleasantries hurled at me.

Jan. Recall entire threads that you started whose sole aim was to attack atheists and atheism.

If I have, I apolgise. But!
Like you mentioned already, my responses are tailored to the individual.

You have even spent an incredible amount of time and effort here trying to redefine the very word "atheist" to suit yourself, in opposition to how atheists choose to define themselves.

I disagree. I have, and am defining the word according to its meaning.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God (or god’s). The reason for this is according to the individual.

In other words, you've tried to set up a straw man version of atheist for yourself to knock down. If that's not a wild attack, what is?

Are you saying that definition is mistaken?

If you've decided to put that behind you now, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and say "I'm glad you're past that."

Attacks? Sure I will.
But it must work both ways.

Okay. So your first sentence here seems to say that you think that God either objectively exists or he objectively does not exist.

I’m being courteous, because we both have opposing views.

Objectivity and subjectivity go hand in hand.
The reason you are atheist is both due to the objective, and the subjective.

It true for me that God Is, and for you, there is no evidence of God. At some point we have to acknowledge that it is the case, and move on from there.

I'd like to say I'm happy you recognise this, but you've made essentially the same statement many times before, then have gone on with the "God doesn't exist for you" business, as you do here.

It is true that God Is, for me, and there is no evidence of God for you. I am only stating a fact.

In other words, you move immediately from a superficial examination of objective reality to concentrate almost entirely on subjective beliefs. I'm not convinced that you haven't lost sight of the question of objective truth by the time you write your next sentence.

I call it as I see it. To do anything else would be pointless.
Whenever we explain something, it is automatically subjective.

To define God as something that exists within the material world, we have to examine the claims of God (so to speak).

God is the origin of the material world.
That’s not the reason people are theists, it is an aspect of God.

The atheists believes that through modern science, there is no need to invoke God, as there appear to explanations that explain this phenomenon.

The theist was not there at the time of God constructing the material world, and the atheist was not there at the time when these natural forces directed the material world from nothing. So both claims are necessarily subjective.

That means we have to examine whatever evidence there is, and explain how that evidence support our position. This explanation of the evidence is subjective.

What follows here is "Atheists deny God, IMO". Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. It's understandable that you think God obviously exists, so non-believers must be in denial.

But then we get "So God does not exist for them". This is a statement about the subjective reality - that is, a statement about the mental state of the atheist, from your perspective.

That’s the reality.
If we all went about our business, and paid no attention to theism, or atheism, there would be no need to say that. But we are paying attention to it, so it becomes theists believe in God, and atheists don’t.

The boyfriend story is useful, because it shows that you think of atheists as having forgotten that God exists, on purpose.

Well one cannot forget something on purpose, or at least we don’t tend to. We forget over time, the length of time depends on the importance of the thing we forget. IOW we can only forget something for real.
We also forget things when they are out of our view, or range, and we have other things going on. Again it depends on its importance.

Or, in other words, you think that atheists have made a choice to pretend that God doesn't exist, in the same way that the girl pretends the ex-boyfriend doesn't exist, all the while knowing that really, the ex-boyfriend is out there somewhere in the objective world, no matter how much she tries not to think about him.

My opinion is that atheist have forgotten God, and do not pretend to have forgotten God. But I think atheist suppress the knowledge that can only be accounted for by God (the Romans biblical verse spring to mind). In doing so they can maintain their position without feeling they are lying to themselves. IOW some atheists never let the discussion go further than asking for direct evidence of God’s existence, and coming up with any thing they can to block what I regard as evidence.
In short arguing for evidence of God becomes a pointless pursuit, because we both have to approach from our foundational position and perspectives.

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

continued...

Not only from my perspective, obviously. Other atheists here hold the same opinion. The other theists haven't commented, to my knowledge.

One can only comprehend revelation , if one is already in a position to comprehend it. It is the fundamental position that allows, or doesn’t allow it to happen.

When I interact with people, I see what I think it is they’re revealing from a psychological perspective. When a trained psychiatrists interacts, they see what I see, and a whole lot more.

So revelation is both objective, and subjective. You can’t have one without the other. But upon receiving any data, information, or revelation, it can only be believed overtime, and/or experience.

Painting yourself as the victim is a bit disingenuous of you,

I don’t know if I would refer to myself as a “victim”, but there has been some unpleasantries hurled at me.

Jan. Recall entire threads that you started whose sole aim was to attack atheists and atheism.

If I have, I apolgise. But!
Like you mentioned already, my responses are tailored to the individual.

You have even spent an incredible amount of time and effort here trying to redefine the very word "atheist" to suit yourself, in opposition to how atheists choose to define themselves.

I disagree. I have, and am defining the word according to its meaning.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God (or god’s). The reason for this is according to the individual.

In other words, you've tried to set up a straw man version of atheist for yourself to knock down. If that's not a wild attack, what is?

Are you saying that definition is mistaken?

If you've decided to put that behind you now, I'll be the first to pat you on the back and say "I'm glad you're past that."

Attacks? Sure I will.
But it must work both ways.

Okay. So your first sentence here seems to say that you think that God either objectively exists or he objectively does not exist.

I’m being courteous, because we both have opposing views.

Objectivity and subjectivity go hand in hand.
The reason you are atheist is both due to the objective, and the subjective.

It true for me that God Is, and for you, there is no evidence of God. At some point we have to acknowledge that it is the case, and move on from there.

I'd like to say I'm happy you recognise this, but you've made essentially the same statement many times before, then have gone on with the "God doesn't exist for you" business, as you do here.

.

It is true that God Is, for me, and there is no evidence of God for you. I am only stating a fact.

In other words, you move immediately from a superficial examination of objective reality to concentrate almost entirely on subjective beliefs. I'm not convinced that you haven't lost sight of the question of objective truth by the time you write your next sentence.

I call it as I see it. To do anything else would be pointless.
Whenever we explain something, it is automatically subjective.

To define God as something that exists within the material world, we have to examine the claims of God (so to speak).

God is the origin of the material world.
That’s not the reason people are theists, it is an aspect of God.

The atheists believes that through modern science, there is no need to invoke God, as there appear to explanations that explain this phenomenon.

The theist was not there at the time of God constructing the material world, and the atheist was not there at the time when these natural forces directed the material world from nothing. So both claims are necessarily subjective.

That means we have to examine whatever evidence there is, and explain how that evidence support our position. This explanation of the evidence is subjective.

What follows here is "Atheists deny God, IMO". Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. It's understandable that you think God obviously exists, so non-believers must be in denial.

But then we get "So God does not exist for them". This is a statement about the subjective reality - that is, a statement about the mental state of the atheist, from your perspective.

That’s the reality.
If we all went about our business, and paid no attention to theism, or atheism, there would be no need to say that. But we are paying attention to it, so it becomes theists believe in God, and atheists don’t.

The boyfriend story is useful, because it shows that you think of atheists as having forgotten that God exists, on purpose.

Well one cannot forget something on purpose, or at least we don’t tend to. We forget over time, the length of time depends on the importance of the thing we forget. IOW we can only forget something for real.
We also forget things when they are out of our view, or range, and we have other things going on. Again it depends on its importance.

Or, in other words, you think that atheists have made a choice to pretend that God doesn't exist, in the same way that the girl pretends the ex-boyfriend doesn't exist, all the while knowing that really, the ex-boyfriend is out there somewhere in the objective world, no matter how much she tries not to think about him.

My opinion is that atheist have forgotten God, and do not pretend to have forgotten God. But I think atheist suppress the knowledge that can only be accounted for by God (the Romans biblical verse spring to mind). In doing so they can maintain their position without feeling they are lying to themselves. IOW some atheists never let the discussion go further than asking for direct evidence of God’s existence, and coming up with any thing they can to block what I regard as evidence.
In short arguing for evidence of God becomes a pointless pursuit, because we both have to approach from our foundational position and perspectives.

The problem here is that this is not the atheist mindset. Many atheists, if you ask them, will tell you - as I have told you - that they don't think that "God does not exist". Rather, they think that "God probably does not exist" or, more often, that "there's nothing objective that strongly suggests that God exists".

That is off the back of their atheism, which holds that such a person does not believe in God, for whatever reason.

I think atheists like yourself, assume that their position is ground zero, the position we all start from, and from there we form our beliefs.

Theist assume the opposite. God just Is, and from there we form our beliefs.
Unless it can be shown otherwise, I think we should just accept that both sides believe they are correct.

Moreover, if you ask the girl whether she acknowledges that the ex-boyfriend is out there in the world, she might conceivably say something like "He's out there somewhere, but I want nothing to do with him. He's dead to me."

I’m not suggesting it is a permanent fixture. I’m saying she has genuinely forgotten him. Obviously her memory can be jogged.

In contrast, if you ask an atheist whether he acknowledges that God is out their in the world, he will never say "I know God's out there, but he abandoned me so I want nothing to do with him. For me there is no God." Those are not the words of an atheist, but of a theist who is unsatisfied and angry with his God.

Agreed.
But if you have forgotten God, that means there is no God, as far as you are aware. So you cannot believe in God. That to me is fundamental core of atheism.

Of course you can argue that you haven’t forgotten God, there just is no evidence to support God. But how do you know you haven’t forgotten God? The only way we can know, is if our memory returns.

To summarise: if you think that atheists are really just disillusioned theists, deep down, then you don't really know anything about what it is to be atheist.

I don’t think it is as simple as that.
We all forget things, and while we are in that mode of forgetfulness, those things do not exist until we regain our memories.
That is why I say that for the atheist, there is no God.[/quote]

Same way you obtained it. Parents, teachers, friends, religious texts, preachers, cultural immersion, etc.

That’s not the reason I believe in God.
But if that is how you came to believe in God, I can see why you came out of it.

You might like me to add something like "private revelation", and if I was still a theist I might be inclined to add that, too. These days I know that such "revelation" is to be treated with the utmost suspicion.

Nope. I accept what you say.[/quote][/quote]

Because I have no problem at all with you believing whatever you like about imaginary beings. It's your life to live. I'm only concerned if you start pretending it's all real outside your head.

If you believe theism is based on belief in an imaginary deity, can you see why I say that for you, there is no God?

...

 

[Jan Ardena]

continued...

Tentatively, I would suggest that it might be common to every theist, now that you mention it, although present to different degrees in different theists.

How does that work from your perspective?

For example, some theists would say "I believe in God, but I know I can't prove that God is real", while others would say "I believe in God, and there's good evidence that God is real". In the latter case, it could be that the theist doesn't understand what good evidence is (so is mistaken), or it could be that the theist thinks that subjective belief counts as good evidence in the real world.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter either way, the person still believes in God. Evidence is objective in that it is present, but the explanation of the evidence is subjective.

Let’s use gravity as an example.
The basic definition of gravity is, the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth, or towards any other physical body having mass. The explanation describes what we see, the law itself is not within it. So it is subjective.
As I understand, there are alternatives, and no matter how many there are, what we describe s gravity still is, even though we may not fully understand it.

Even if nobody can prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that God is real, it doesn’t mean God isn’t real, or that no one can know.

Jan.

 

[davewhite04]

Even if nobody can prove to everyone’s satisfaction, that God is real, it doesn’t mean God isn’t real, or that no one can know.

Jan.

Imagine if we knew he was real? No more philosophy/religion forum! No way, he will always give the option. It's what free will is all about.

 

[spidergoat]

Imagine if we knew he was real? No more philosophy/religion forum! No way, he will always give the option. It's what free will is all about.

Jesus may very well have been a real person, but you would still have to prove all the supernatural stuff.

 

[Tiassa]

Which you, having taken the whole thing out of context, misread. And repeatedly refused to re-assess.

‡​

You misread the entire conversation.

No, Iceaura. You're just not honest.

But that's digression - what's your point here? Am I supposed to refrain from making my assessments, because they are mine? Are your assessments and attacks and poorly reasoned criticisms somehow rehabilitated, if mine are unreliable?

Why do you need to keep on with the make-believe?

Get this through your skull: Your assessments are unreliable. To wit, when you whine, "Are your assessments and attacks and poorly reasoned criticisms somehow rehabilitated", the question is not valid because the assessment upon which it is based—i.e., yours—is known to be unreliable.

So stop with the fallacies. Stop with the make-believe. You know, kind of like how you denied it happened, then blamed the post on me, then denied blaming the post on me, but now, all this time and that many swings and misses later, now you have a narrative. Sorry, but that would be a stretch even if the narrative had some grounding in fact. When it comes to being in a mood, and not liking the language, it might be more accurate to wonder at your prior inquiry↗ in that discussion, "Why are you lapping poor gun regulation over vicious and institutionalized misogyny as a cultural problem?" Because when we track back↗ to what you're asking about, we find the answer really ought to have been obvious, having to do with Pat Robertson, Christendom, supremacism, masculine privilege and ...

... oh.

Well, there we are, then.

 

[davewhite04]

No, Iceaura. You're just not honest.



Why do you need to keep on with the make-believe?

Get this through your skull: Your assessments are unreliable. To wit, when you whine, "Are your assessments and attacks and poorly reasoned criticisms somehow rehabilitated", the question is not valid because the assessment upon which it is based—i.e., yours—is known to be unreliable.

So stop with the fallacies. Stop with the make-believe. You know, kind of like how you denied it happened, then blamed the post on me, then denied blaming the post on me, but now, all this time and that many swings and misses later, now you have a narrative. Sorry, but that would be a stretch even if the narrative had some grounding in fact. When it comes to being in a mood, and not liking the language, it might be more accurate to wonder at your prior inquiry↗ in that discussion, "Why are you lapping poor gun regulation over vicious and institutionalized misogyny as a cultural problem?" Because when we track back↗ to what you're asking about, we find the answer really ought to have been obvious, having to do with Pat Robertson, Christendom, supremacism, masculine privilege and ...

... oh.

Well, there we are, then.

I remember someone accusing me of being pompous, I never forgot it, I must think of it at least twelve times a year.

Still not sure if it's a good or bad thing?

You come across as pompous but maybe you're the real deal?

 

[Tiassa]

You come across as pompous but maybe you're the real deal?

A little from column A, a little from ... well, it's your definition of real deal. You're observing dramas years underway. If you track this particular back and forth back to #217↑, each one of that post's three short sections is a disaster unto itself; the detail can feel complex for the internal contradictions, but the particular problem on this occasion seems to be that I didn't address Jan in a hateful enough tone to satisfy our neighbor.

And if I'm supposed to care about his dissatisfaction, he is welcome to start making sense.

Really, a lot of this is long drama.

 

[iceaura]

No, Iceaura. You're just not honest.

You are wrong about that, as you could verify for yourself by reviewing those posts you keep linking, in context etc. (The one where I quoted myself quoting you, to keep the comment and conversation in context, seems to have been the ripest ).
But the real question is: How did you come to go haywire in that typically turbid and convoluted fashion?
And here, we have clues:

When it comes to being in a mood, and not liking the language, it might be more accurate to wonder at your prior inquiry↗ in that discussion, "Why are you lapping poor gun regulation over vicious and institutionalized misogyny as a cultural problem?" Because when we track back↗ to what you're asking about, we find the answer really ought to have been obvious, having to do with Pat Robertson, Christendom, supremacism, masculine privilege and ...
oh.

The same problem with the Clinton campaign - we were all misogynists, we supposed Bernie Bros, we critics of the greatest American politician of our lifetimes (or words to that effect - note the acknowledgement of paraphrase). Once you get that bit in your teeth, there's no turning you short of the cliff.
What cliff?
This one:

You know, kind of like how you denied it happened, then blamed the post on me, then denied blaming the post on me, but now, all this time and that many swings and misses later, now you have a narrative.

There's nothing new, or recent, or changeable, about any "narrative" of mine in this matter - pointing out you've been full of shit from the gitgo has been kind of repetitive, on my part. And notice the rhetorical tactic, the pretending of first encounter, the "now" - remind you of anybody?
A simpler example of where this has taken you, from that link of yours:

It's interesting that you, who advocates for poor gun regulation, would raise this point.

See, that's not true - the little clause there. Crudely false (no one here has posted more advocacy for good gun regulation, or more opposition to poor gun regulation - certainly not you). And it's slander, of a particular kind - familiar kind. And look at the way it's phrased - "it's interesting that" + bs - - - . Who talks like that? You know who talks like that, if you back up a sec, or turn on your TV.
And so we fetch up, at the bottom of the skidmark, on this bemusement - the loss of irony in the addled, the defining characteristic of the frustrated authoritarian:

Get this through your skull: Your assessments are unreliable.

Not compared with yours, dude.

So what do people know about what they pretend to discuss? There's the other side: What do they pretend to know about what they do discuss?

but the particular problem on this occasion seems to be that I didn't address Jan in a hateful enough tone to satisfy our neighbor.

Complete - and quite pretentious - bullshit. And you know it.

(For dave, who seems to be sucked in: the only such "particular problem" is the manner in which Tiassa addresses the simplistic or crude atheists who post here. Not Jan. Check for yourself, in my posts - like this one:

The question is whether the areas of ignorance displayed by the shallow atheists under fire here are relevant to what these atheists - and the theists they are joined with - are "discussing". It seems to me that they are not.
That the people doing the pretending are the ones invoking theological subtleties and complex historical heritage and matters of serious scholarship.

And learn something about Tiassa. )

 

[Tiassa]

Not compared with yours, dude.

Iceaura, you were just caught lying, full stop.

 

[iceaura]

Iceaura, you were just caught lying, full stop.

That's not true. I don't know whether you actually believe it, though - hard to know how to take that kind of bs from you.

You are, after all, the guy who just now not only posted once but linked or doubled down on these:
- but the particular problem on this occasion seems to be that I didn't address Jan in a hateful enough tone to satisfy our neighbor.
-It's interesting that you, who advocates for poor gun regulation, would raise this point.
- You know, kind of like how you denied it happened, then blamed the post on me, then denied blaming the post on me, but now, all this time and that many swings and misses later, now you have a narrative.

and so forth;
the originals of those being interleaved with much fine rhetoric about other people "whining" and "screeching" and so forth (I once had a longer list ready to mind, but forgot most of them) - just the kind of language we expect from sober posters in command of their faculties.

Something about reliability of assessment goes here. And irony.

So what does Tiassa really know about what other people should be discussing, instead of what they are discussing? In particular: the simplistic atheists, the smart-alec pack, the standup jokemongers and public scourgers of Abrahamic theism as it is routinely encountered in their communities and daily lives - what knowledge of what they should be discussing would be relevant to their assessments?
And who, exactly, is "pretending" here?

 

[Tiassa]

That's not true.

Just keep making it up. You've just been shown↑ that your claim that something "never happened"↑ is false. And now, here you are, lying again.