Ironically, you're committing the fallacy — S

No. Either reasonable people need me to be reasonable to accept my belief, which in turn means I have to be reasonable - or they're not reasonable; in that number, you.


Dear S, all you do is state your belief.
All I do is state my belief.
Yet, I do not understand, why it pleases you so to dominate me, and why you desire to tower over me and cast a big shadow over me.
I do not understand why you strain yourself so, to put me down.
If you are so great, and you tower over me, why do you care about me so much - as to want to put me down? Do you go out of your way to squash every ant to proliferate your greatness?
If I have, in some way, encouraged you to this demeaning behaviour - I apologise.

No. Either reasonable people need me to be reasonable to accept my belief, which in turn means I have to be reasonable - or they're not reasonable; in that number, you. — Shamshir

I've asked you a few times now to make your intention here clear, specifically as to whether or not you intend to be reasonable. You haven't directly answered that question, and based on your replies, including the rest of your reply quoted above, which I've discarded as irrelevant, I'm going to answer that question myself: you do not intend to be reasonable. Thus, I'm going to end our exchange.

If I use a descriptor (I try not to) I use "agnostic." — Frank Apisa


If you genuinely didn't care about such descriptors, then you wouldn't get so worked up about being called an atheist rather than an agnostic... — S

Is there a particular philosophical perspective you have just invented to make this so?

And...what the hell makes you think that because I do not like to use a personal descriptor...means I do not care about such descriptors.

For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that.

...and you wouldn't rant about it on here as you are wont to do. — S

I do not rant. I often repeat things...as you do...and as many others do.

But you are not like me at all in this respect. You care a great deal about something I consider to be too insignificant to get worked up about.

I see. BUT...if I've accidentally lead you to suppose I give a rat's ass whether you care about it or not...or whether you and I are alike in any respect...

...please be dissuaded of that notion. I am not even remotely concerned about that.

Anything else I can help you with?

For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that. — Frank Apisa

It's the exact opposite of an aid. It's a problematic assumption, a hindrance.

I do not rant. — Frank Apisa

I don't think anyone else sees it that way. You come across as ranting.

I often repeat things... — Frank Apisa

That's a massive understatement.

as you do...and as many others do. — Frank Apisa

To no where near the extent that you do. You and creativesoul are by far the worst on the forum for this, and Devans99 is in the same boat, for sure.

Anything else I can help you with? — Frank Apisa

Milk, two sugars. Thanks.

Wait, hold on a second here. Ive been following this thread and what you are saying makes zero sense at all, you’ve made some kind of nightmare turn in your logic that I am compelled to point out here...what kind of madman puts sugar in his milk?!
Get help.

S
10k

For the record, I think they are important in some cases. If a person uses the descriptor "atheist" or, let's say, "agnostic atheist"...it says to me that the person almost certain "believes" (blindly guesses) there are no gods or "believes" (blindly guesses) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. In a discussion with someone using that descriptor, It is an aid to realize that. — Frank Apisa


It's the exact opposite of an aid. It's a problematic assumption, a hindrance. — S

No it isn't a hinderance...it is, as I said, an aid.

I do not rant. — Frank Apisa


I don't think anyone else sees it that way. You come across as ranting. — S

I do not rant...and for pig-headed people, I feel it is necessary to repeat things.

You are, in my opinion, pig-headed...so I repeat for you.

I often repeat things... — Frank Apisa


That's a massive understatement. — S

As I said...it often is necessary.

as you do...and as many others do. — Frank Apisa


To no where near the extent that you do. You and creativesoul are by far the worst on the forum for this, and Devans99 is in the same boat, for sure. — S

It is not surprising that you think that. But your opinions are so poor...it doesn't make sense to give them too much weight.

Anything else I can help you with? — Frank Apisa


Milk, two sugars. Thanks.

Sorta funny. But don't give up your day job. I liked Dingo-Jones' retort better.

Wait, hold on a second here. Ive been following this thread and what you are saying makes zero sense at all, you’ve made some kind of nightmare turn in your logic that I am compelled to point out here...what kind of madman puts sugar in his milk?!
Get help. — DingoJones

Oh, right. The coffee. Sometimes I forget the coffee. And the cup! That mischievous cup. Always running away from me by staying perfectly stationary in the cupboard where I left it. And the kettle! That little rascal. He never boils himself when I tell him to. Sometimes I end up just pouring the boiling water all over the floor on my ceiling in the tower inside the galaxy of my mind.

And my pills! I knew there was something else I forgot.

Well I guess I have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Straight out of the gate, you call bullshit, and then you back pedal.

Atheism is a descriptor--yes, it describes an absence of belief in gods, full stop. That its definition and context arise from "to not believe in gods" is as accurate a description of it as can be accomplished. I'm not making a suggestion, all I have to do is read words in a book called "the dictionary"--words which leave no room for interpretation or expansion.

The only motive I can see to avoid using such a descriptor is if someone lives among others who fasten extrapolations and embellishments to the meanings of words in order to focus large groups of people under a singular narrow lens. I would say descriptors are relatively important. For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation.

It's probably best to avoid moving semantic goal posts in order to make an irrational statement based on how something affects someone emotionally in a context of rational discourse. There are times I think to myself about a definition, "this could use a few adjustments", but then I realize I'm reading an excerpt from the Oxford dictionary, and the definition has been changed by someone who has emotional and political reasons for altering the meaning of something that was perfectly fine for the previous seventy years before they formed an opinion about it.

What's nonsense is that atheism has a rather elaborate philosophy and accompanying personality profile attached to it by non-atheists who then presume to tell an theist what they believe and do not believe.

My belief system doesn't entail someone else projecting their belief system onto me.

whollyrolling
382
↪Frank Apisa


Well I guess I have to call bullshit on your calling bullshit. Straight out of the gate, you call bullshit, and then you back pedal.

Atheism is a descriptor--yes, it describes an absence of belief in gods, full stop. That its definition and context arise from "to not believe in gods" is as accurate a description of it as can be accomplished. I'm not making a suggestion, all I have to do is read words in a book called "the dictionary"--words which leave no room for interpretation or expansion.

The only motive I can see to avoid using such a descriptor is if someone lives among others who fasten extrapolations and embellishments to the meanings of words in order to focus large groups of people under a singular narrow lens. I would say descriptors are relatively important. For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation.

It's probably best to avoid moving semantic goal posts in order to make an irrational statement based on how something affects someone emotionally in a context of rational discourse. There are times I think to myself about a definition, "this could use a few adjustments", but then I realize I'm reading an excerpt from the Oxford dictionary, and the definition has been changed by someone who has emotional and political reasons for altering the meaning of something that was perfectly fine for the previous seventy years before they formed an opinion about it.

What's nonsense is that atheism has a rather elaborate philosophy and accompanying personality profile attached to it by non-atheists who then presume to tell an theist what they believe and do not believe.

My belief system doesn't entail someone else projecting their belief system onto me. — whollyrolling

Thank you for sharing your thoughts...and now I must call bullshit on your call of bullshit on my earlier call of bullshit on your nonsense.

The idea of "atheism" meaning without a belief in any gods is derived from the mistaken notion that the word come from "a" (without) + "theism" (a belief in a god) = without a belief in a god.

But that nonsense is out the door, since any etymological search shows that "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism...so it could not have derived that way.

Modern atheists have hijacked the "I have no belief in a god" so that they can inflate their ranks with the more intelligent and honest "agnostics." And it allows atheists to pretend they have no "beliefs"...when in fact, every person I've ever known who uses the word...does "believe" that there are no gods...or who "believe" that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
I'm not projecting anything on to you. I am calling you on your bullshit.

For example, if I call something a chair, and someone else calls it a pigeon, and someone else calls it a cyclopean calculator, then I think we're in for a troublesome conversation. — whollyrolling

Not really. So long as you're talking about the same thing, then it doesn't really matter. It only matters if you make it matter, and it just isn't worth the bother.

You're calling bullshit on what grounds, that you insist in present day upon using a definition from 600 BCE? Good call. Let's go back 3,000 years for all our definitions and see how rational things get around here. Let's ascribe godlessness, evil and stupidity to things we don't understand, like how someone could possibly live in absence of a very specific belief system while others insist on its Truth in the absence of evidence relying solely on faith as a guide.

The whole idea of faith, which is the basis for the religious experience, is that someone should strive to believe something that is contrary to what evidence in their environment indicates. It is a struggle to find meaning in the emptiness of being. It takes more effort to believe something that is not evident than to disbelieve it, which is the natural position to take and the reason there are fewer fundamentalists than moderates within any given religion. This is the reason someone would call religion a "hard and narrow path", because it involves a series of motivations to think and act in accordance with a desired Truth even though that desired Truth exists in perpetual doubt.

Religion is a reward system for someone's commitment to a belief in the unseen and actions in accordance with accompanying principles. Atheism is an absence of this commitment. The differences between "godless" and "doesn't believe" and "believes but won't admit it" is negligible and relies on the belief system of someone who is skeptical about atheism.

"Modern atheists" haven't "hijacked" anything, this is categorization--"groupthink". Someone who adopts the label "atheist" doesn't represent all renditions of atheist any more than someone who adopts the label "theist" represents all renditions of theist. "Modern atheists do this or that" is prejudice.

— whollyrolling

All this "belief" crap in a discussion of whether or not any gods exist...is nothing but blind guesswork.

There is no effort or work involved in simply saying, "I 'believe' a GOD exists"...or for that matter, "I 'believe' there are no gods."

If you want to blindly guess either way...do it, but spare the bullshit that it is anything more than a blind guess. And that "faith" that you talked about is simply insisting that the blind guess is correct.

And we are not talking 3000 years ago.

I defy you to find a dictionary published before 1950...that does not have the definition of atheist as "someone who denies the existence of God (or, a god.)

Get off it.

Modern atheists do want to define anyone who does not have a belief that at least one god exists.

That is a hijacking.

I'm not blind, and I'm not guessing. Guessing is when you say "hey, there's a thing that no one can see let's try to imagine what it might look like, I think it probably acts like this, etc". You're the one preaching belligerently and with prejudice against what you seem to perceive as "my kind".

You are presently doing everything you're accusing "modern atheists" of doing, literally all of your accusations can be attributed to you and your argument.

And hold on...you don't think belief has anything to do with a thread that is centred on a divide between those who "believe in gods" and those who "don't believe in gods"? Really?

I mean...really?

whollyrolling
388
↪Frank Apisa


I'm not blind, and I'm not guessing. Guessing is when you say "hey, there's a thing that no one can see let's try to imagine what it might look like, I think it probably acts like this, etc". You're the one preaching belligerently and with prejudice against what you seem to perceive as "my kind".

You are presently doing everything you're accusing "modern atheists" of doing, literally all of your accusations can be attributed to you and your argument.

And hold on...you don't think belief has anything to do with a thread that is centred on a divide between those who "believe in gods" and those who "don't believe in gods"? Really?

I mean...really? — whollyrolling

Use a quote...and argue against that, rather than this nonsense of characterizing what has been said and then mocking your characterization.

Yes...really.

Saying, "I am an atheist" is not guessing.

Saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...IS a guess...a blind guess.

That seems to bother you.

Great!

That is the idea of repeating it.

It's actually a rationalized dismissal of the alleged relevance to my existence of sunlight being blown out of proportion 15,000 years ago.

Why are you compelled to throw your belief system and accompanying semantics around as though it's impossible to imagine that someone could excuse themselves from the ancient sun worship dinner table and go out for an I don't believe anything you're saying to me leisurely Sunday drive?

Your opinion doesn't determine my stance on cosmic anomalies.

whollyrolling
390
↪Frank Apisa


It's actually a rationalized dismissal of the alleged relevance to my existence of sunlight being blown out of proportion 15,000 years ago.

Why are you compelled to throw your belief system and accompanying semantics around as though it's impossible to imagine that someone could excuse themselves from the ancient sun worship dinner table and go out for an I don't believe anything you're saying to me leisurely Sunday drive?

Your opinion doesn't determine my stance on cosmic anomalies. — whollyrolling

I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing."



You can dismiss anything you want.

I have no problem with you having no "belief" in any gods. I have no "beliefs" in any gods myself.

But as I said, anyone asserting "there are no gods"...is asserting a blind guess.

If you have a problem with that...let's discuss it.

I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. — Maureen

Alvin Plantinga believes that he "knows" (in the strict sense) God exists, despite the fact that he can't provide irrefutable evidence of God's existence.

Plantinga's reformed epistemology assumes there is such thing as a sensus divinitatus that informs all proper-functioning humans of God's existence. Analogously: you can KNOW you're holding a rose in your hand, but you cannot prove to me that you are doing so (if I'm not seeing it myself). Same with the Sensus Divinitatus: either you sense it or you don't .

Those of us (like me) who do not sense God's existence are not proper functioning. He acknowledges that if God does not exist, then there is actually no such thing as the sensus divinitatus, but if God exists and he instilled us with this sense, then there can be knowledge of God. It's a cute system.

Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa

Well yes, it is, in practice. We use guesswork to get past the fact that the things we know are so few. The "feelings" you mention are guesswork, and we have no alternative but to guess, or to proceed with no answer at all.

Pattern-chaser
1k

Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa


Well yes, it is, in practice. We use guesswork to get past the fact that the things we know are so few. The "feelings" you mention are guesswork, and we have no alternative but to guess, or to proceed with no answer at all. — Pattern-chaser

I have no problem with that...and I agree.

I call my feelings..."feelings." I call my guesses..."guesses."

The reason I do is because that is what they are.

People who call their feelings or guesses...KNOWING...are doing an injustice to reasonable, serious discussion.

I will give what I think is compelling evidence for a divine consciousness.

(1) Human beings and other animals are conscious and self-aware.
(2) Human beings and other conscious animals are made of matter.
(3) Matter collected and organized itself somehow in order to become conscious.
(4) Either matter collected and organized itself into conscious beings purely by accident or by design.
(5) It seems highly unlikely to me that inanimate matter could spontaneously collect and organize itself into conscious beings all on its own without some kind of guidance.
(6) Thus, it is highly likely that matter was guided by some conscious being to form into conscious animals.

(7) I call this guiding consciousness "God". — Noah Te Stroete

You could have stopped at 3. Everything after 3 contradicts 3.

I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa

Do you believe that?

Not all things that are true can be proved. If I had a thought yesterday I cannot prove it. But it is true that I had that thought.
— EnPassant

True, but in this case we are talking about the existence of someone or something that has been expressed by millions of people, which is binary and cannot be compared to something that a single person or even a few people claim to have done but can't prove it. To put it quite simply, something either exists or it doesn't; there is no in-between, and this is true whether or not you or anyone else knows whether or not the thing exists. The funny thing about this particular argument, though, is that it continues to be had even in spite of its clearly binary nature, which should be enough to have long since put an end to the conversation. The way I see it, if you are gnostic and on either side of this argument, or for that matter even if you are a full-on atheist or theist, you do not know if God exists. If there is any difference in the gnostic stance, it is that they are at least willing to admit that God may or may not exist, which is the next best thing to saying that they don't know if God does or does not exist. Regardless, though, no one knows if God does or does not exist no matter what they believe, and perhaps more importantly, God either does or does not exist.

You don't do discussion, so you have some nerve to lecture others in this regard or to invite them to discuss matters, giving them false hope. Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record.

creativesoul
4.8k

I have no "belief system"...I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


Do you believe that? — creativesoul

No I do not. I do not do "believing."

I KNOW that...not "believe" it.

S
10k
↪Frank Apisa
You don't do discussion, so you have some nerve to lecture others in this regard or to invite them to discuss matters, giving them false hope. Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record. — S

Then stop doing it.

I don't.

So, you know that but you do not believe that?

Discussion requires more than just talking at someone like a broken record. — S

Nuh-uh!

To answer the OP...

Some ask for evidence of God's existence because some require evidence to believe that anything exists.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


So, you know that but you do not believe that? — creativesoul

That is correct. I do not do "believing."

You know that you understand these words, and you do not believe that you understand these words.