Your best argument that G-d does not exist

[Blastcat]

And I'm totally 1,000% okay with that. Actually, I don't want people to "convert" to my beliefs or views at all. This whole discussion in this thread was much more about bringing awareness to that the concept of God is in fact too vague and to disprove God is impossible.

I totally agree that God's existence is possible. For sure...absolutely.. just like Santa is possible.
So, that's not saying very much.

I would also say.. facetiously, 1,000% POSSIBLE.. But does that mean that God's existence is probable at all? Well, that's another question. Is God real?.. ahhh well if you want to claim it's real.. A WHOLE other kettle of fish.

So, the fact that we can't say that anything is ABSOLUTELY impossible.. Doesn't at all affect the PROBABILITY that it is possible.

Sure. And I understand that. This thread was about disproving God. But how do you do that when there are as many versions of God as there are human beings? And ultimately, all of us have one, and one only God... ourselves.

Ok.. Let's just talk about the PEOPLE who BELIEVE in a god of some kind.. THOSE are the ones who debate with each other as to the characteristics of that god.. When I was a member of ONE particular religious denomination.. we used to DEBATE what God was.. everyone had a different take. Yes, it was an EXTREMELY personal, subjective understating. Now, yes, there were vague, generalities we could agree on.. mostly the nice, cozy words.. love, and kindness.. and happiness.. and so on.. But that was pretty much pap.

Now, if you want to conflate the meaning of GOD with HUMAN.. I have to wonder what you mean by either. You've just demonstrated how vague and personal the term "god", or "God" really is. You've explained your god in an uniquely personal way.

And we have billions of believers just like you making uniquely personal interpretations about the term and CLAIMING that it's objective. I just think this is mostly due to people having trouble with language.

My version, regardless if you accept it or not, is impossible to disprove existence of since its definition is "what exists."

Well, that doesn't help your case. Something that isn't falsifiable is likely to not be real.

And if you just want to play word games.. substituting one word for another, God is "what exists"... Okee dokee....

So, everything that "EXISTS" is god.. why don't you just say what you mean?...

Whatever exists, exists. And the word God.. is what you call that which exists.. god is just a word, or a label for that which exists. Nice. You have a confusing and vague label .. that you have to explain all the time..

I don't see the usefulness of that.

All I can see is that you have established a tautology.. God is a label... You can substitute the word God and the term "what is real".. because they are interchangeable.

You might as well say that God is God. Or .. God is what is real.. or What is real is God.. or What is real is what is real and I call that God.. Well you can CALL anything anything. And play word games like that.. I'm going to call a PEACH.. a pear. And I'm going to call God.. Santa.

 

[Blastcat]

It wasn't directed to you and me, but to me and other atheists. Since you're not an atheist, you don't have to take it to heart.

I'm an atheist.. I think it says that on the left. I don't want to be included in your "we".. I don't agree with what you said I had to believe in. Sorry.

So, please, don't generalize. You'd do better to talk about YOUR beliefs.. and not try to include me in those in order to gain some kind of victory by way of argument from popularity that isn't justified.

What I was trying to explain was that I do not ever say that " A god does NOT exist"... Just FYI... I just say that I don't believe in one.. and that I have no evidence for one.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Before I quote you all over the internet and my latest best seller on the subject, I'd like to have you explain what hear-say evidence I must be using to say that I don't have any evidence for any god, and that therefore, i don't believe in any?

What hear-say evidence am I using here?

There's no evidence for or against God creating the universe, the core issue here. Yet you look at the lack of evidence for how it came to be, then claim and proclaim, through what, negative revelation, that it wasn't done by a natural or supernatural conscious power. At that point, your proclamation becomes hearsay. Most cosmologists and some professional atheists in recent years have been forced to admit (Hawking petulantly kicking and screaming) that God can't be ruled out as the possible cause. So when someone does rule God out, that's hearsay no different than saying God made the universe in 7 days--it's just more recent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I'm totally 1,000% okay with that. Actually, I don't want people to "convert" to my beliefs or views at all. This whole discussion in this thread was much more about bringing awareness to that the concept of God is in fact too vague and to disprove God is impossible.

I think the vagueness of the term "god" (or "God") actually makes things easier for those who want to reject the existence of gods. There are lots of god-concepts that end up being incoherent or logically contradictory; these god-concepts don't need to be disproven so much as disregarded. That which can't be conceived can't be believed.

Sure. And I understand that. This thread was about disproving God. But how do you do that when there are as many versions of God as there are human beings?

More than that, if you consider that many people have multiple god-concepts in their head: one person might believe that the Norse pantheon is all real but the Greek pantheon is not; they'd have their own take on all of thise gods that's slightly different from anyone else's.

Still, I don't think that makes rejecting (note: rejecting, not disproving - incoherent claims can't be disproven even though it's irrational to accept them as true) all gods impossible for any given person:

- we're talking about "all gods", not "all things that people call 'god'". This doesn't mean - as you've repeated and been corrected on many, many times - that we take the Christian God as what "God" means and automatically reject all other versions, but it does mean that we ought to ask ourselves "what does 'god' mean?" and whatever our answer is, set aside the "gods" that aren't in line with that definition.

- Quite a few god-claims have similar characteristics, so we can potentially reject these ones in clumps. For instance, if we conclude (as I think is reasonable) that the "3 omnis" are incompatible with each other, then we can throw all "3 omnis" gods out without going through them one-by-one.

And ultimately, all of us have one, and one only God... ourselves.

I don't consider myself to be a god.

--edit

Or let me rephrase some things. I didn't bring my version of God into the discussion for the purpose to convert anyone or convince anyone that my version is somehow the "True" one. Not at all. I only ask for a level of respect that there are other views of God out there that are not the old traditional Christian theology version. My version, regardless if you accept it or not, is impossible to disprove existence of since its definition is "what exists."

And for the umpteenth time: disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm restricting myself to only the Christian view of God.

I recognize that you're a theist (I think - I believe I've also heard you call yourself an atheist, too, which implies you aren't a theist... but my impression is that you're just using the term "atheist" incorrectly). I don't agree with your grounds for theism (or anyone else's grounds), which is why I'm not a theist myself.

 

[Ouroboros]

I totally agree that God's existence is possible. For sure...absolutely.. just like Santa is possible.
So, that's not saying very much.

I didn't say God's existence is possible. You're misreading me. My message is that you can't reason or argue for or against the existence of God regardless of there's a God or not. It's very different issue.

I would also say.. facetiously, 1,000% POSSIBLE.. But does that mean that God's existence is probable at all? Well, that's another question. Is God real?.. ahhh well if you want to claim it's real.. A WHOLE other kettle of fish.

I'm saying that there are multiple definitions of what God is, one of them is pantheism, which says that the Universe and everything that exists is God. Now, to show a pantheist that their God doesn't exist, how would you prove the universe doesn't exist?

So, the fact that we can't say that anything is ABSOLUTELY impossible.. Doesn't at all affect the PROBABILITY that it is possible.

Have nothing to do with what I said.

Ok.. Let's just talk about the PEOPLE who BELIEVE in a god of some kind.. THOSE are the ones who debate with each other as to the characteristics of that god.. When I was a member of ONE particular religious denomination.. we used to DEBATE what God was.. everyone had a different take. Yes, it was an EXTREMELY personal, subjective understating. Now, yes, there were vague, generalities we could agree on.. mostly the nice, cozy words.. love, and kindness.. and happiness.. and so on.. But that was pretty much pap.

You're right. Every person has their own view of what God is, so if you have to show that God in general does not exist, you somehow have to first show what God is in a way that generally everyone can agree on, which you can't because everyone has their own view!

Now, if you want to conflate the meaning of GOD with HUMAN.. I have to wonder what you mean by either. You've just demonstrated how vague and personal the term "god", or "God" really is. You've explained your god in an uniquely personal way.

Isn't that what I'm trying to do? Every person has their own view of what God is. You have your own view. And your definition of God is a God that doesn't exist. But the problem really gets complicated when you insist that your definition of this non-existent God is the God that everyone else have to adopt and accept, only for the purpose so you can tell them that this God doesn't exist!

And we have billions of believers just like you making uniquely personal interpretations about the term and CLAIMING that it's objective. I just think this is mostly due to people having trouble with language.

I HAVE NOT CLAIMED MY VIEW IS OBJECTIVE!!!

I have multiple times said that it is my PERSONAL view and my SUBJECTIVE opinion, not the objective at all. But when you insist that my personal and subjective view somehow has to conform to YOUR OBJECTIVE DEFINITION of God, then it is you who are trying to convert me to your God that doesn't exist.

Well, that doesn't help your case. Something that isn't falsifiable is likely to not be real.

You're just really out there. So far of the path that you disappeared over the horizon line.

And if you just want to play word games.. substituting one word for another, God is "what exists"... Okee dokee....

So, everything that "EXISTS" is god.. why don't you just say what you mean?...

Whatever exists, exists. And the word God.. is what you call that which exists.. god is just a word, or a label for that which exists. Nice. You have a confusing and vague label .. that you have to explain all the time..

I don't see the usefulness of that.

All I can see is that you have established a tautology.. God is a label... You can substitute the word God and the term "what is real".. because they are interchangeable.

You might as well say that God is God. Or .. God is what is real.. or What is real is God.. or What is real is what is real and I call that God.. Well you can CALL anything anything. And play word games like that.. I'm going to call a PEACH.. a pear. And I'm going to call God.. Santa.

I'm done with you.

I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[Blastcat]

There's no evidence for or against God creating the universe, the core issue here. Yet you look at the lack of evidence for how it came to be, then claim and proclaim, through what, negative revelation, that it wasn't done by a natural or supernatural conscious power.

But no, I didn't make that claim. That's what I was ASKING about.. what claim? All I see is others insisting that I'm making these claims.. but.. I'm really not. Can you quote me on that?.. I'd have to admit I'm wrong if you can quote me saying that... I'm honestly offering to admit that I'm wrong.. so .. just do that.. quote me.

My point to Ouroboros was the he shouldn't presume to tell me what I think.. or believe... and now, you're compounding the error.
Please stop.

At that point, your proclamation becomes hearsay.

I don't know how it could be painfully true to you that I had made any proclamations.

Most cosmologists and some professional atheists in recent years have been forced to admit (Hawking petulantly kicking and screaming) that God can't be ruled out as the possible cause.

I haven't seem Hawking scream or kick in a long time about anything. Scientists don't have to be forced to admit that anything is possible. I think they know that.

Anything is possible. That's not to say that anything is PROBABLE... God is possible.. but that says NOTHING about the probability of a god being true. Nothing at all.. Santa is also just as possible. We can't rule him out, either.

So when someone does rule God out, that's hearsay no different than saying God made the universe in 7 days--it's just more recent.

Heresay evidence?... If I rule god out as a mere possibility that hasn't been proven.. how am I using hearsay evidence?.. who am I quoting?... Someone else?... I rule out god as a possibility the same as I rule out Santa.. or Vishnu or.. any other hypothesis that hasn't been proven.

String theory, or 11 dimensions or multiple universes are also mere possibilities.. but they do have an advantage.. they can all fit in with math and everything ELSE that we know about the universe.

God.. has a book.. and ah.... yah. A very NICE book... that God fit's into. Yeah.. I;ll go with everything else that we know to be true and maths... instead.. that's my bias. Ancient book vs. All that we know through the study of reality .. that has been demonstrated to work all the time. AND that has refuted many of the claims in the very old , but very nice.. book.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think the vagueness of the term "god" (or "God") actually makes things easier for those who want to reject the existence of gods. There are lots of god-concepts that end up being incoherent or logically contradictory; these god-concepts don't need to be disproven so much as disregarded. That which can't be conceived can't be believed.

Sure. There's a term for that ignosticism.

And I have no problem with you or anyone rejecting the existence of gods or even my view. The problem is for you to give the arguments to their non-existence. You can reject based on that you don't think any of them exist, but you can't really use that as an argument for that they do not exist.

Let's say I tell you I have something in my pocket (Lord of the Ring reference). What's in my pocket? You can keep on guessing, and perhaps never be right. You can also insist that I have nothing in my pocket simply because you don't know what I have in my pocket. But now, try to prove that I have nothing in my pocket because you don't know what's in there. That you can't.

More than that, if you consider that many people have multiple god-concepts in their head: one person might believe that the Norse pantheon is all real but the Greek pantheon is not; they'd have their own take on all of thise gods that's slightly different from anyone else's.

Still, I don't think that makes rejecting (note: rejecting, not disproving - incoherent claims can't be disproven even though it's irrational to accept them as true) all gods impossible for any given person:

- we're talking about "all gods", not "all things that people call 'god'". This doesn't mean - as you've repeated and been corrected on many, many times - that we take the Christian God as what "God" means and automatically reject all other versions, but it does mean that we ought to ask ourselves "what does 'god' mean?" and whatever our answer is, set aside the "gods" that aren't in line with that definition.

I've been corrected on this? Ok. Well. Then I'm leaving this thread since it is not an open or general debate. Got it.

- Quite a few god-claims have similar characteristics, so we can potentially reject these ones in clumps. For instance, if we conclude (as I think is reasonable) that the "3 omnis" are incompatible with each other, then we can throw all "3 omnis" gods out without going through them one-by-one.

I don't consider myself to be a god.


And for the umpteenth time: disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm restricting myself to only the Christian view of God.

I recognize that you're a theist (I think - I believe I've also heard you call yourself an atheist, too, which implies you aren't a theist... but my impression is that you're just using the term "atheist" incorrectly). I don't agree with your grounds for theism (or anyone else's grounds), which is why I'm not a theist myself.

You don't get it. I understand. We're leaving this for what it is. Especially since the thread is about the Christian/Catholic God, and not any other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure. There's a term for that ignosticism.

... and ignosticism is a subset of atheism.

And I have no problem with you or anyone rejecting the existence of gods or even my view. The problem is for you to give the arguments to their non-existence. You can reject based on that you don't think any of them exist, but you can't really use that as an argument for that they do not exist.

Let's say I tell you I have something in my pocket (Lord of the Ring reference). What's in my pocket? You can keep on guessing, and perhaps never be right. You can also insist that I have nothing in my pocket simply because you don't know what I have in my pocket. But now, try to prove that I have nothing in my pocket because you don't know what's in there. That you can't.

That isn't a valid analogy.

One thing that's common to all definitions of "god" is that a god is something important. If we look for gods to the point where any remaining unknown places would only allow for an umimportant or irrelevant god, then we're done.

Looking for God is like looking for a country's staple food: if it really is a staple, it should be all around you. Even if someone finds a plant growing wild in some forgotten corner of the country, it wouldn't be a staple, so it isn't what you were looking for.

I've been corrected on this? Ok. Well. Then I'm leaving this thread since it is not an open or general debate. Got it.

What?

You've been corrected on your misrepresentations of the beliefs of atheists. You're free to consider whatever you want to be "God", but if you keep on presenting this insulting false dichotomy, I'm going to keep calling you out on it. The fact that someone disagrees with your definition of God does not mean that they only accept a Christian definition of God. There are many reasons why a person might disagree with you.

You don't get it. I understand. We're leaving this for what it is. Especially since the thread is about the Christian/Catholic God, and not any other.

Yes, a thread about God started by a Muslim is only about the Catholic God.

Are you even trying to make sense?

 

[Blastcat]

I didn't say God's existence is possible. You're misreading me. My message is that you can't reason or argue for or against the existence of God regardless of there's a God or not. It's very different issue.

Ok, right. You aren't saying that the EXISTENCE of god is impossible.. you are saying that DISPROVING the existence of god is impossible:

This whole discussion in this thread was much more about bringing awareness to that the concept of God is in fact too vague and to disprove God is impossible.

But I was also saying that it's also JUST as impossible to prove that any god DOES exist... So, were done now, right? God can't be proved or disproved.. so.. why bother believing in something like that?... But trying to shift the burden of the proof is kinda.. lame, in my view. It's really not up to anyone to DISPROVE claims.. the burden really lies on people to PROVE their claims.. any claim, not just god claims.

I'm saying that there are multiple definitions of what God is, one of them is pantheism, which says that the Universe and everything that exists is God. Now, to show a pantheist that their God doesn't exist, how would you prove the universe doesn't exist?

Yes, there are very many definitions for this term "god".
Yes, Pantheism is a definition.
Yes, Pantheism holds that god is equal to everything..

I would not be able to "show" that the pantheist's conception of god was false. Just like any other definition for god, it suffers from unfalsifiability. Confidently asserting that a theory or hypothesis is true or false even though the theory or hypothesis cannot possibly be contradicted by an observation or the outcome of any physical experiment, usually without strong evidence or good reasons is simply fallacious logic.

I would certainly not pretend to demonstrate that the universe doesn't exist. I am not prone to that level of illogic.

You're right. Every person has their own view of what God is, so if you have to show that God in general does not exist, you somehow have to first show what God is in a way that generally everyone can agree on, which you can't because everyone has their own view!

No, I have to know what the CLAIM is so I can even HOPE to refute it.. I can't get some.. "IN GENERAL" consensus view of what 8 billion people might be disagreeing on. .. So, it's case by case.. not some bogus generalization that I have to conjure up just so that people can be incensed at my STRAW MAN argument. If they have a claim to make, let them make it. I'm not going to bother refuting some imaginary being that I make up.. I have way better things to do with my time.

Everyone DOESN'T agree on what a god is.. or who this ONE god is or whatnot.. that's one of the HUGE problems with the term.. not being falsifiable, everyone has a different idea. Well, maybe that's because there is no real god out there...

So, define for me that which you want me to refute.. so at least I have a clue what you're talking about. To me, the word god is a concept that does not match with any reality. So, if you think that some god is real.. define it.. precisely. Let's take a LOOK at that god.....

AND THEN.. we can start looking to see if it exists or not.. I don't have to pretend what you , or anyone else thinks this god is.. or gods are or.. whatever. That's not MY job.

Isn't that what I'm trying to do?

I'm not sure what you're trying to do.

Every person has their own view of what God is. You have your own view.

Why would you say that?.. of course, I don't have a view of what God "is".. I have NO idea what a god might be or if one exists in any way.

And your definition of God is a God that doesn't exist.

No, that's not a definition. I have no definition. What you have described pretty well is my opinion on gods. Not just one one god.. but on them all.. and all kinds of other supernatural beings.. I don't DEFINE god as "something which does not exist".. lol

I don't define god at ALL... lol... I will let believers define god for me. IF they can.

But the problem really gets complicated when you insist that your definition of this non-existent God is the God that everyone else have to adopt and accept, only for the purpose so you can tell them that this God doesn't exist!

Well, lucky for me, I don't have that problem.
I don't define god.
In any way.
At all.

I HAVE NOT CLAIMED MY VIEW IS OBJECTIVE!!!

Ok, thanks. My mistake.. Please clarify.

My version, regardless if you accept it or not, is impossible to disprove existence of since its definition is "what exists."

So, let me get this right.. YOUR version is impossible to DISPROVE... so, does that mean that it is possible to PROVE it?.. I hope you don't mean that...

I have multiple times said that it is my PERSONAL view and my SUBJECTIVE opinion, not the objective at all.

I was quoting something you DID write. I didn't read everything you have written. Forgive me. But I quoted you.. and then I commented. I tried to find the conversation.. but couldn't. This seems like a misunderstanding.

But when you insist that my personal and subjective view somehow has to conform to YOUR OBJECTIVE DEFINITION of God, then it is you who are trying to convert me to your God that doesn't exist.

I insisted something?.. hmm Odd.. I don't recall insisting on forcing ANY definitions on ANYONE.. sorry. It's just something I would never do.

I don't have any kind of definition for god.. not objective, nor subjective.. so.. odd that I would insist on you using MY definition when I don't happen to HAVE one.

Very odd, indeed.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

But no, I didn't make that claim. That's what I was ASKING about.. what claim?

You say you're an atheist, that's a belief and a claim. You're only out is if you say you're a materialist and don't give a damn. The fact that you're here speaks volumes.

Please stop.

I'm not telling you what you think (you are), nor am I putting words in your mouth.

I don't know how it could be painfully true to you that I had made any proclamations.

"I--Am--An--Atheist."----says is all. The atheist's war cry "I only disbelieve in God" became tired and discarded because there's just no denying your position. "Disbelieve", "don't believe", "God is crap", they all say the same thing. And what 99% of atheists are arguing against is revealed god(s). If you want to shoot fish in a barrel, why not start a thread by that title.

I haven't seem Hawking scream or kick in a long time about anything. Scientists don't have to be forced to admit that anything is possible. I think they know that.

Anything is possible. That's not to say that anything is PROBABLE... God is possible.. but that says NOTHING about the probability of a god being true. Nothing at all.. Santa is also just as possible. We can't rule him out, either.

This is getting monotonous. They're not saying anything is possible (your putting words in their and my mouth), they're saying there's to possible causes for the universe, with their being evidence for neither. I referred specifically to Hawking, because 3 or 4 years ago he claimed to have deduced information from before the Big Bang, which proved (or was strong evidence for) no God). He had to back down and wasn't happy about it at all. He's as emotionally invested in atheism as so many are, based on blind faith which is exactly the same a that used by evangelicals and revelationists.

Heresay evidence?... If I rule god out as a mere possibility that hasn't been proven.. how am I using hearsay evidence?.. who am I quoting?... Someone else?... I rule out god as a possibility the same as I rule out Santa.. or Vishnu or.. any other hypothesis that hasn't been proven.

You haven't ruled God out, at least not a deist God. And you're getting monotonous again, your proclamation is your hearsay, just like all the ancient biblical prophets. You've gotta start thinking outside of the revealed religion box, or arguing against it when that's not on the table.

String theory, or 11 dimensions or multiple universes are also mere possibilities.. but they do have an advantage.. they can all fit in with math and everything ELSE that we know about the universe.

Maybe so, but not from "before" or "outside" the universe.

God.. has a book.. and ah.... yah. A very NICE book... that God fit's into. Yeah.. I;ll go with everything else that we know to be true and maths... instead.. that's my bias. Ancient book vs. All that we know through the study of reality .. that has been demonstrated to work all the time. AND that has refuted many of the claims in the very old , but very nice.. book.

I wrote the above before reading this and thus confirming your single-minded targeting of revealed religion, justified though it is inside of that box it's in.

 

[Blastcat]

You say you're an atheist, that's a belief and a claim. You're only out is if you say you're a materialist and don't give a damn. The fact that you're here speaks volumes.

I am an atheist. It's a non belief.. not a belief, but a NON belief.. but no, it's no claim at all. Sorry. You are just mistaken. I make NO claims. OK?

I just don't buy the claims of the theists.. I am A theist.. that's not a claim, that's a position.
I literally do no make a claim.
I make a conclusion and a decision ..

I'm not telling you what you think (you are), nor am I putting words in your mouth.

Yes, if you say that I'm making a claim, that's putting words in my mouth.. Sorry. I'm not making any claims here.

"I--Am--An--Atheist."----says is all. The atheist's war cry "I only disbelieve in God" became tired and discarded because there's just no denying your position.

You don't seem to like my real postilion, do you?

"Disbelieve", "don't believe", "God is crap", they all say the same thing.

I agree with all of the above. But that's not a claim. That's an opinion. Sorry. Claims and opinions are not the same. Conflation error.

This is getting monotonous. They're not saying anything is possible (your putting words in their and my mouth),

Could you quote me on that? Because it's really not something I'd say.. Maybe you are mistaking me with someone else.

I referred specifically to Hawking, because 3 or 4 years ago he claimed to have deduced information from before the Big Bang, which proved (or was strong evidence for) no God). He had to back down and wasn't happy about it at all. He's as emotionally invested in atheism as so many are, based on blind faith which is exactly the same a that used by evangelicals and revelationists.

Ok, Point taken.. I'm not going to read Hawking's mind about what he thought and what not. But it doesn't matter what Hawking thinks about god. He isn't some atheist guru. He is entitled to his own opinions. But it would be nice if you could give us your sources. Actual quotes from Hawking would be nice. He isn't KNOWN for being a theist.

You haven't ruled God out, at least not a deist God.

That's right. I haven't ruled out ANY god.. deist theist or .. whatnot. And I haven't ruled out SANTA either. All possibilities.

And you're getting monotonous again, your proclamation is your hearsay, just like all the ancient biblical prophets.

I literally have no idea what you mean by that. Hearsay?.... hmm

You've gotta start thinking outside of the revealed religion box, or arguing against it when that's not on the table.

A box?
What box is that?..
I HAVE no particular box..
Look on the left under my face.. see where it says religion?...
I put in "None".
I have none.
No box.

I wrote the above before reading this and thus confirming your single-minded targeting of revealed religion, justified though it is inside of that box it's in.

Im single minded.. ok.... im targeting religions,.,that's true... It's justified within it's own box?
You want ME to think outside the box.. but that it's OK for "revealed religion" to stay in the box?

I don't get this double standard much..
Sorry to be so monotonous.
When I don't understand, I just say I don't understand.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am an atheist. It's a non belief.. not a belief,

Atheists have been trying that semantic ploy for years and it's yet to stick to the wall.

I make NO claims. OK?

So you neither believe in God, nor believe there is no God? What's the definition of atheist? No wait, I'll look it up: ": a person who believes that God does not exist"--Merriam-Webster. Yeah, atheist.org still has that old worn out attempted slight of hand, "disbelief", but it means the same thing. The anarchist's first target is the dictionary whenever they're loosing the battle of wits.

I literally do no make a claim.
I make a conclusion and a decision ..

But you won't claim your conclusion. Are you ashamed of it?

I think we're done here.

 

[Bunyip]

Atheists have been trying that semantic ploy for years and it's yet to stick to the wall.



So you neither believe in God, nor believe there is no God? What's the definition of atheist? No wait, I'll look it up: ": a person who believes that God does not exist"--Merriam-Webster. Yeah, atheist.org still has that old worn out attempted slight of hand, "disbelief", but it means the same thing. The anarchist's first target is the dictionary whenever they're loosing the battle of wits.



But you won't claim your conclusion. Are you ashamed of it?

I think we're done here.

Wha do you mean? Atheism is just a disbelief. In what way is that not 'sticking'?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Wha do you mean? Atheism is just a disbelief. In what way is that not 'sticking'?

Because changing the words to a definition to say the same thing in the hope it obscures things, only fools the ones who are changing it--and maybe a few useful idiots.

 

[Bunyip]

Because changing the words to a definition to say the same thing in the hope it obscures things, only fools the ones who are changing it--and maybe a few useful idiots.

Yes, that was my point. Defining atheism as a positive claim is indeed disengenuous. It is an attempt to transfer the burden of proof by a simple semantic trick.

 

[Blastcat]

Atheists have been trying that semantic ploy for years and it's yet to stick to the wall.

It's yet to stick....lol. I know.

It's as if some apologists want to imagine our position so that it would be easier to knock that straw man down, than our own, actual, position.
The attempt at tu quoque ( as in "You make a positive claim, TOO!) is lame, shifting the burden of the proof is lame( as in, "I wont prove my position, you have to DISPROVE my position ) , denying our self-labeling the way we want ( as in "You define your own position wrong!!) is very lame.

I feel .. "Why do I bother talking to these people? They just sit there and pretend to tell me what I believe" .. it's insane to me. And while they argue about what this word means TO ME.. (as if that wasn't a silly semantic game.. because we are talking about MY definition of MY belief structure.. ) I STILL NOTICE that they aren't at all giving any supporting evidence for THEIR own, initial claims.

What a red-herring.. as if I wouldn't notice. These people think they are being clever. I am not so impressed. ( as in.. Let's not talk about MY CLAIM.., let's not talk about ME.. let's talk about YOU!)

So you neither believe in God, nor believe there is no God?

That's close. Let's take a look at the two parts to that sentence.

1.So you neither believe in God?... that's right. I don't believe in any gods. Including your god.
2, Nor believe there is no God?... that's wrong. The question is wrong. It's the same question as above in number 1, but put in a weird way.. made to make it look as if I have this BELIEF in a non-godness beingness. It's so convoluted Put up a complex bit of language smoke screen to hide from actually addressing their own burden of the proof. .. Why the smoke and mirrors, why put it on us if THEIR position is so strong?

Seems like a .. clever tactic. Get your opponent confused and running around in circles so they don't challenge what is REALLY being CLAIMED HERE.. that a GOD EXISTS.. That's the claim of the theist.. THAT'S what they should be defending. An ATTACK is not a defense.

I think one of the problems understanding the meaning of atheism this way is due to the SUBJECT matter. I think the concept of GOD here is too emotionally charged. What I would propose is to use an EXAMPLE of anything else we might believe or not believe in. And then, talk about that.. and see how a lack of a belief isn't the same as a belief.

NON BELIEF IS NOT THE SAME AS BELIEF

And to me, that's what's not sticking. It's almost as if the apologists are saying that a NON BELIEF is the same as a BELIEF...They are opposites, like black and white. One says YES.. and the other says NO.. and that's supposed to be the same thing.

To me, that's like saying black is white, good is evil, .. but that kind of contradiction renders any argument trying to use the terms belief or non belief.. meaningless.

Sorry, but up simply isnt' down.

We could see that a CLAIM that something is true is not the same as the OPINION that it's not. One person makes a positive claim, and the other is .. not impressed. Is NOT believing in that claim. One person makes an argument for something.. and the other ISN'T moved by it, and so does not accept the conclusion of the argument.

So, to me, it's very plain that religious folks ARE making a claim that their GOD concept is true or real.. that a god EXISTS... that's not in any kind of mystery, is it? We are not talking about agnostics, but believers.

So, that's the CLAIM of theism. That a god EXISTS. Theism MAKES a claim.

Now, I come along, evaluate the claim ,and say.. nah.. Not buying it.That is not a claim. THAT is a judgement on a claim. Not sticking yet?

I am not SAYING I KNOW there is no god, or that there can't possibly BE a god.. who KNOWS?.. but.. that's not saying much. There might BE a Santa.. or aliens flying around L.A... Name any weird possibility, or any possibility at all. A possibility is NOT a probability.

BUT.. I am not convinced that Santa DOES exist, you see. I am not convinced that ALIENS ARE abducting humans all over the place, either.

But as you say, my explanations never seem to "stick". But they stick pretty much with MANY of us atheists thinking about the subject. So, it sticks a BIT to SOME. But maybe not to you.

Oh well, If an apologist can't accept the definition of my position , there's no use in debating that. And if there's no use in DEBATING that.. it might shut us pesky atheists up. Because we can't talk to apologists at all.

They have very cleverly stopped the conversation. ... Seems that way is NOT the way of 1 Peter 3:15... but that's not my call.

What's the definition of atheist? No wait, I'll look it up:

OH wow.. and I thought for a moment you were actually going to ask me my definition. No, it looks like you're going to TELL me what my position SHOULD BE. You ALMOST asked me there.. so close, but no cigar.

What would you think if I told YOU what YOUR Christian beliefs are and aren't?... How about I look it up in some book?... No? You wouldn't LIKE me making a straw man argument just so I could knock you down? Oh. Ok then, I wont do that. Waste of time, anyway. Doing that would be very bad thinking.. so yeah. I will try as best I can to understand YOUR definitions.. and not try to force my definitions on you.

sound fair enough.. no? Only works the one way?.. hmmm

": a person who believes that God does not exist"--Merriam-Webster.

And that's a fine definition.. but then, the clever apologists started playing with the grammar. As if that changes the position itself.
So, now, we have to debate language and grammar. Instead of the apologist's claims. Well, other than being a clever DIVERSION tactic.. i don't really see the point.

A person who believes that God does not exist is a person who doesn't have a belief in God.

It's the SAME THING...It's just put in a different way. This is English.. its a bit sloppy. Language is sloppy.. that's why people invented propositional calculus, for precisely circumventing and untangling language problems like this one.

SOME ATHEISTS DOES NOT MEAN ALL ATHEISTS

Is it true that SOME atheist make the POSITIVE claim that no gods exist?.. YES it is true
BUT does that imply that ALL atheists make that claim?... no it just doesn't.

I DO know some atheists who DO tell me that they KNOW that God doesn't exist, and those people are just not up to date with the epistemology that most thinking atheists are aware of now. As we interact with theists more and more, our own thinking and methods are improving. Some people just aren't as sophisticated.. That happens. SO.. your criticism MIGHT be directed to the actual atheists who DO make a positive claim that God does not exist.. I'm quite sure that there are many.

NOW.. it's true that IF some atheists MAKES THE CLAIM that a god DOES NOT EXIST.. then he shoulders the burden to PROVE THAT POSITIVE CLAIM.. that's perfectly true. Some atheists to make that claim. But not ALL ATHEISTS MAKE THAT CLAIM.

Some atheists are not ALL atheists, so it does no good to paint us all with the same brush. I would argue with those atheists TOO..

BUT.. as an atheist, I don't HAVE to make any kind of POSITIVE claim. I am making ONLY a NEGATIVE one. That's... what the letter "a" in front of the word atheist represents.. a purely NEGATIVE and not a POSITIVE ( never a positive ) stance.

So, to say that I have POSITIVE stance on theism just seems utterly ridiculous to me. And yet, it doesn't stick. OK.. now what?

Yeah, atheist.org still has that old worn out attempted slight of hand, "disbelief", but it means the same thing. The anarchist's first target is the dictionary whenever they're loosing the battle of wits.

Now, I have to be an ANARCHIST TOO? What ELSE do I have to pretend to accept that I believe in to make their case work?.... I don't WANT to pretend to be an anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist. I don't have a say in this? .. I have NO affiliation with anarchy in ANY way. Please, find the dictionary reference to ANARCHISM in the definition of atheism .. I've never heard of such a thing. I see no link. But more to the point, there MAY be some atheists who ALSO happen to be anarchists.. BUT that is NOT what atheism is about. Atheism isn't some form of revolt against GOVERNMENTS.

So, you think I'm CLEVERLY disguising my BELIEF by using the word UNBELIEF?....well, then, I'm a liar. And a fool. As it says in Psalm 14:1.

Because I'm an atheist.. why would ANYONE believe what I say?... So, has anybody PROVED that God exists by this word game?.. I don't think so..

But you won't claim your conclusion. Are you ashamed of it?

I think we're done here.

You might be done. If that's so, ok.

But this is weird use of language.. CLAIM MY CONCLUSION?....I define conclusion thus : a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

A judgement is not a claim. It's a decision. I don't KNOW anything absolutely Your god MAY exist, after all.. and Santa MAY exist after all too.. The two are improbable to me.. I would call myself an ASANTAIST as well.. if it was a big issue in our world.

But I wouldn't make the positive claim that Santa doesn't exist as if I had PROOF or EVIDENCE to demonstrate that.. I can't demonstrate that an invisible magical man lives in the North Pole. Because God and Santa and Vishnu and Allah.. and so forth are UNFALSIFIABLE concepts. I can't pretend that I have proof of their non-existence. I just don't think that the believers have given proof for their beliefs. So I withhold belief until they do.

But look.. if none of this is ever going to stick, I can see how you are done here..
I must be just foolish, because I'm evil and wicked.. because it says so in the Bible.

I have and continue to evaluate the evidence and arguments for the existence of gods.

My opinion on the subject is that the evidence provided is insufficient and that the arguments aren't sound. So, I am not going to believe in the claimed gods.

Do you SEE where I am making a claim here?

Did I SAY that no god exists? Or did I say that I can't KNOW if one exists, and that therefore, I cannot BELIEVE that one exists?

Because, that's what I'm really saying. ..

I'll put in bold so that maybe it will stick better.. Look for the word "claim", in my definition, ok?

I can't KNOW if a god exists, and therefore, I cannot BELIEVE that a god exists.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, that was my point. Defining atheism as a positive claim is indeed disengenuous. It is an attempt to transfer the burden of proof by a simple semantic trick.

It's yet to stick....lol. I know.

It's as if some apologists want to imagine our position so that it would be easier to knock that straw man down, than our own, actual, position.
The attempt at tu quoque ( as in "You make a positive claim, TOO!) is lame, shifting the burden of the proof is lame( as in, "I wont prove my position, you have to DISPROVE my position ) , denying our self-labeling the way we want ( as in "You define your own position wrong!!) is very lame.

I feel .. "Why do I bother talking to these people? They just sit there and pretend to tell me what I believe" .. it's insane to me. And while they argue about what this word means TO ME.. (as if that wasn't a silly semantic game.. because we are talking about MY definition of MY belief structure.. ) I STILL NOTICE that they aren't at all giving any supporting evidence for THEIR own, initial claims.

What a red-herring.. as if I wouldn't notice. These people think they are being clever. I am not so impressed. ( as in.. Let's not talk about MY CLAIM.., let's not talk about ME.. let's talk about YOU!)



That's close. Let's take a look at the two parts to that sentence.

1.So you neither believe in God?... that's right. I don't believe in any gods. Including your god.
2, Nor believe there is no God?... that's wrong. The question is wrong. It's the same question as above in number 1, but put in a weird way.. made to make it look as if I have this BELIEF in a non-godness beingness. It's so convoluted Put up a complex bit of language smoke screen to hide from actually addressing their own burden of the proof. .. Why the smoke and mirrors, why put it on us if THEIR position is so strong?

Seems like a .. clever tactic. Get your opponent confused and running around in circles so they don't challenge what is REALLY being CLAIMED HERE.. that a GOD EXISTS.. That's the claim of the theist.. THAT'S what they should be defending. An ATTACK is not a defense.

I think one of the problems understanding the meaning of atheism this way is due to the SUBJECT matter. I think the concept of GOD here is too emotionally charged. What I would propose is to use an EXAMPLE of anything else we might believe or not believe in. And then, talk about that.. and see how a lack of a belief isn't the same as a belief.

NON BELIEF IS NOT THE SAME AS BELIEF

And to me, that's what's not sticking. It's almost as if the apologists are saying that a NON BELIEF is the same as a BELIEF...They are opposites, like black and white. One says YES.. and the other says NO.. and that's supposed to be the same thing.

To me, that's like saying black is white, good is evil, .. but that kind of contradiction renders any argument trying to use the terms belief or non belief.. meaningless.

Sorry, but up simply isnt' down.

We could see that a CLAIM that something is true is not the same as the OPINION that it's not. One person makes a positive claim, and the other is .. not impressed. Is NOT believing in that claim. One person makes an argument for something.. and the other ISN'T moved by it, and so does not accept the conclusion of the argument.

So, to me, it's very plain that religious folks ARE making a claim that their GOD concept is true or real.. that a god EXISTS... that's not in any kind of mystery, is it? We are not talking about agnostics, but believers.

So, that's the CLAIM of theism. That a god EXISTS. Theism MAKES a claim.

Now, I come along, evaluate the claim ,and say.. nah.. Not buying it.That is not a claim. THAT is a judgement on a claim. Not sticking yet?

I am not SAYING I KNOW there is no god, or that there can't possibly BE a god.. who KNOWS?.. but.. that's not saying much. There might BE a Santa.. or aliens flying around L.A... Name any weird possibility, or any possibility at all. A possibility is NOT a probability.

BUT.. I am not convinced that Santa DOES exist, you see. I am not convinced that ALIENS ARE abducting humans all over the place, either.

But as you say, my explanations never seem to "stick". But they stick pretty much with MANY of us atheists thinking about the subject. So, it sticks a BIT to SOME. But maybe not to you.

Oh well, If an apologist can't accept the definition of my position , there's no use in debating that. And if there's no use in DEBATING that.. it might shut us pesky atheists up. Because we can't talk to apologists at all.

They have very cleverly stopped the conversation. ... Seems that way is NOT the way of 1 Peter 3:15... but that's not my call.



OH wow.. and I thought for a moment you were actually going to ask me my definition. No, it looks like you're going to TELL me what my position SHOULD BE. You ALMOST asked me there.. so close, but no cigar.

What would you think if I told YOU what YOUR Christian beliefs are and aren't?... How about I look it up in some book?... No? You wouldn't LIKE me making a straw man argument just so I could knock you down? Oh. Ok then, I wont do that. Waste of time, anyway. Doing that would be very bad thinking.. so yeah. I will try as best I can to understand YOUR definitions.. and not try to force my definitions on you.

sound fair enough.. no? Only works the one way?.. hmmm



And that's a fine definition.. but then, the clever apologists started playing with the grammar. As if that changes the position itself.
So, now, we have to debate language and grammar. Instead of the apologist's claims. Well, other than being a clever DIVERSION tactic.. i don't really see the point.

A person who believes that God does not exist is a person who doesn't have a belief in God.

It's the SAME THING...It's just put in a different way. This is English.. its a bit sloppy. Language is sloppy.. that's why people invented propositional calculus, for precisely circumventing and untangling language problems like this one.

SOME ATHEISTS DOES NOT MEAN ALL ATHEISTS

Is it true that SOME atheist make the POSITIVE claim that no gods exist?.. YES it is true
BUT does that imply that ALL atheists make that claim?... no it just doesn't.

I DO know some atheists who DO tell me that they KNOW that God doesn't exist, and those people are just not up to date with the epistemology that most thinking atheists are aware of now. As we interact with theists more and more, our own thinking and methods are improving. Some people just aren't as sophisticated.. That happens. SO.. your criticism MIGHT be directed to the actual atheists who DO make a positive claim that God does not exist.. I'm quite sure that there are many.

NOW.. it's true that IF some atheists MAKES THE CLAIM that a god DOES NOT EXIST.. then he shoulders the burden to PROVE THAT POSITIVE CLAIM.. that's perfectly true. Some atheists to make that claim. But not ALL ATHEISTS MAKE THAT CLAIM.

Some atheists are not ALL atheists, so it does no good to paint us all with the same brush. I would argue with those atheists TOO..

BUT.. as an atheist, I don't HAVE to make any kind of POSITIVE claim. I am making ONLY a NEGATIVE one. That's... what the letter "a" in front of the word atheist represents.. a purely NEGATIVE and not a POSITIVE ( never a positive ) stance.

So, to say that I have POSITIVE stance on theism just seems utterly ridiculous to me. And yet, it doesn't stick. OK.. now what?



Now, I have to be an ANARCHIST TOO? What ELSE do I have to pretend to accept that I believe in to make their case work?.... I don't WANT to pretend to be an anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist. I don't have a say in this? .. I have NO affiliation with anarchy in ANY way. Please, find the dictionary reference to ANARCHISM in the definition of atheism .. I've never heard of such a thing. I see no link. But more to the point, there MAY be some atheists who ALSO happen to be anarchists.. BUT that is NOT what atheism is about. Atheism isn't some form of revolt against GOVERNMENTS.

So, you think I'm CLEVERLY disguising my BELIEF by using the word UNBELIEF?....well, then, I'm a liar. And a fool. As it says in Psalm 14:1.

Because I'm an atheist.. why would ANYONE believe what I say?... So, has anybody PROVED that God exists by this word game?.. I don't think so..



You might be done. If that's so, ok.

But this is weird use of language.. CLAIM MY CONCLUSION?....I define conclusion thus : a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

A judgement is not a claim. It's a decision. I don't KNOW anything absolutely Your god MAY exist, after all.. and Santa MAY exist after all too.. The two are improbable to me.. I would call myself an ASANTAIST as well.. if it was a big issue in our world.

But I wouldn't make the positive claim that Santa doesn't exist as if I had PROOF or EVIDENCE to demonstrate that.. I can't demonstrate that an invisible magical man lives in the North Pole. Because God and Santa and Vishnu and Allah.. and so forth are UNFALSIFIABLE concepts. I can't pretend that I have proof of their non-existence. I just don't think that the believers have given proof for their beliefs. So I withhold belief until they do.

But look.. if none of this is ever going to stick, I can see how you are done here..
I must be just foolish, because I'm evil and wicked.. because it says so in the Bible.

I have and continue to evaluate the evidence and arguments for the existence of gods.

My opinion on the subject is that the evidence provided is insufficient and that the arguments aren't sound. So, I am not going to believe in the claimed gods.

Do you SEE where I am making a claim here?

Did I SAY that no god exists? Or did I say that I can't KNOW if one exists, and that therefore, I cannot BELIEVE that one exists?

Because, that's what I'm really saying. ..

I'll put in bold so that maybe it will stick better.. Look for the word "claim", in my definition, ok?

OH wow.. and I thought for a moment you were actually going to ask me my definition.

Bingo, just what I've been saying. You use a word in a different way to confuse the people who don't see what you're doing. Linguistic anarchy. If you don't think the standardized definition of word WHICH WE USE TO ENABLE COMMUNICATION (not your goal obviously), then you either qualify it, or use another or a new word if necessary. In this case you need to qualify it as your being a hard-atheist. But then you loose your audience for the same reason the revealed religions are loosing theirs--unfounded assertions based on faith.

I can't KNOW if a god exists, and therefore, I cannot BELIEVE that a god exists.

You're using the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up. It's basic.

 

[Blastcat]

Bingo, just what I've been saying. You use a word in a different way to confuse the people who don't see what you're doing.

No, that's not what I'm doing. I am defining my term so that people can understand what I mean when I use the term "atheism" more precisely.

I don't want to be misunderstood.

Linguistic anarchy.

Words change over time .. Dictionaries explain common usages of words. But in philosophy, it is very common that we have to DEFINE TERMS. Uncommon to you, perhaps. Anarchy to you, apparently.

"If you don't think the standardized definition of word WHICH WE USE TO ENABLE COMMUNICATION (not your goal obviously), then you either qualify it, or use another or a new word if necessary.

My goal is that people understand as precisely as possible what I mean to say when using a term, so that they can better understand my position and my argument. IF the standardized definition of word is confusing in any way, then I either qualify it, or use another or a new word if necessary.

Yes. That's a good way to proceed.
That's what I've been trying to do.

In this case you need to qualify it as your being a hard-atheist.

If that were my position, I would espouse it, and define what I mean by atheism that way. But I don't hold to that position. So, I don't define my atheism that way. I define my form of atheism the way that I did. And that isn't what is commonly referred to as "hard atheism", at least, not if hard atheism means a claim to KNOW that a God does not exist.

I can't possibly KNOW that.. so,
I can only say that I DO not know that a god does, in fact, exist. And that because of that, it would be contradictory for me to say that I BELIEVE in such a thing.

But then you loose your audience for the same reason the revealed religions are loosing theirs--unfounded assertions based on faith.

I asked you earlier to show me where I made the claim ( or assertions ) in my definition of atheism.

Where I made ANY assertions about the existence of gods? - please supply the citation. If I wrote it, you can find it. If you find it please paste it.

It's no good to simply state that I have made assertions without proving that.. perhaps .. with some QUOTE of mine..

IF I have made any assertions or claims, it should be EASY for you to find them.
Put them up so that everyone can see.

I will gladly concede if I have written any such thing as you accuse me of. I can ASSERT my opinion about theistic claims.. but that's merely stating an opinion.

You're using the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. Look it up. It's basic.

I don't have to look it up. I'm quite familiar with the fallacy.
I don't see how you can find that in my reasoning.
Please explain.

If you are going to accuse me.. it would be nice if you could refer to actual quotes of me making the errors you say I do.

That way, we won't get confused.
My goal is to enable good conversation.. not impede it with baseless accusations.

If I am guilty, you should be able to demonstrate it.. and I will gladly take the criticism.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is not a reasonable request until you define what God is specifically. This should be obvious, as it is completely ridiculous to ask a person to prove that something does not exist when all that is given is a vague explanation or none at all (like in this thread).

Can you define God for the atheists on this thread so they at least have something to work with?

Also, only "strong-atheists" believe that God does not exist. Most atheists, (weak-atheists, agnostics) merely lack a belief in the existence of God.

I think I have defined G-d that I believe in in some recent posts in other threads. There is however no harm giving it here again:

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim. Our G-d is identified by many attributes or these good attributes identify him. I give some of His attributes:

[2:256]Allah — there is no God but He, the Living, the Self-Subsisting and All-Sustaining. Slumber seizes Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that will intercede with Him except by His permission? He knows what is before them and what is behind them; and they encompass nothing of His knowledge except what He pleases. His knowledge extends over the heavens and the earth; and the care of them burdens Him not; and He is the High, the Great.
Quran : Chapter 2
He has existed always and has communicated with righteous persons in every region of the world and in all ages.
His communication identifies that He exists.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Depends on the God and what attributes are assumed.

Please view some of the attributes of G-d I believe in in my post # 159 above .

Regards