You did not understand wittgenstein's language games when I referenced it. He says meaning is derived from the languages which instantiates the sentence and words. I do not agree with that whatsoever but he still says there is a referrent to the language.
You are new to philosophy. Many people here seem to be not. You are also young and egotistical and you're trying your best to claw up some dignity where you shouldn't feel the need to.

Also the advice "you don't know" and "there's more to learn" is effectively meaningless and is either trivial or points towards nothing.

It's completely obvious to anyone who has been studying philosophy for awhile that you referred to late witt's language games which is why I referenced it. You did not know the reference and were caught up in an ego trap.

You are also young and egotistical — Shwah

I'm really not so young anymore, just egotistical. Amen false office ours. A talk links his runes.

You did not know the reference — Shwah

A reference through it. Irreverence threw it. A river runs through it. For river run over all men. For reverend ever endeavor amend. Thigh will be dim inert as it is unleavened.

you referred to late witt's language games — Shwah

His lung wedge gums aren't the only jumpers in his chomp yard.

Now what makes us it difficult for us to take this line of investigation is our craving for generality. This craving for generality is the resultant of a number of tendencies connected with particular philosophical confusions.
...
The idea of a general concept being a common property of its particular instances connects up with other primitive, too simple, ideas of the structure of language. It is comparable to the idea that properties are ingredients of the things which have the properties; e.g. that beauty is an ingredient of all beautiful things as alcohol is of beer and wine, and that we therefore could have pure beauty, unadulterated by anything that is beautiful.

There is a tendency rooted in our usual forms of expression, to think that the man who has learnt to understand a general term, say, the term "leaf", has thereby come to possess a kind of general picture of a leaf, as opposed to pictures of particular leaves. He was shown different leaves when he learnt the meaning of the word "leaf"; and showing him the particular leaves was only a means to the end of producing 'in him' an idea which we imagine to be some kind of general image. We say that he sees what is in common to all these leaves; and this is true if we mean that he can on being asked tell us certain features or properties which they have in common. But we are inclined to think that the general idea of a leaf is something like a visual image, but one which only contains what is common to all leaves. (Galtonian composite photograph.) This again is connected with the idea that the meaning of a word is an image, or a thing correlated to the word. — Blue Book

In an earlier quote it's shown that meaning-as-image loses its appeal without a mystifying obscurity that lingers only until we follow this fantasy to the and.

effectively meaningless and is either trivial or points towards nothing. — Shwah

The points stale what.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. Atheism is in being a-theistic making them a-theists.
— Gregory A
— EugeneW

I don't follow. If atheism is valid wouldn't they be able to talk with mouths wide open and loud words? It are the theists who should be silent.

If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in.

The invalidity of atheism does not validate theism, as naturalism may still be right, but atheism needs to be invalid for theism to be right.
— Gregory A

This is confusing. The invalidity of atheism seems equivalent to the validity of theism. Is naturalism compatible with theism?

Theism, the belief in god/s, has not been validated as a truth. Its belief does not correspond with a known fact. Naturalism is the counterargument to theism, the two being non compatible.

Anyhow, why should we listen to those who reject a God (a relatively simple addon) but then continue to believe in mermaids, unicorns etc
— Gregory A

I'm not sure atheists believe in mermaids and unicorns. They can be found in principle while gods live in a world outside of the universe. But then again, maybe mermaids and unicorns live along with the gods.

We need to accept that atheists believe in these unlikely creatures as the extent of their non-belief relates only to god/s. They are 'atheists' nothing more.


Atheism is a rejection of free-speech (primarily another element of the Left).
— Gregory A

That depends on the atheist and the power they possess. I'm a theist and an anarchist.

Theism is a belief and should be able to express itself as such, but atheism as a non-belief should have nothing to say. An atheist is the equivalent of a heckler, disrupting the theist's attempts to practice their free speech. Anyone can challenge religion/s as they clearly exist.

What is your definition of a god?
— DingoJones

The atheist's challenge is not to 'put up' but is to put up or shut up. — Gregory A

Imagine a stranger or an acquaintance comes up to you and assures you that their grandmother came back from the dead or that their son leaped over the house. You'd be intrigued. At least I would. But I'd want some evidence pronto and get bored pretty quickly with various excuses. 'No one knew she was dead but me, but really she came back.' Or 'my son can only do it when no one is looking or just me.' If there were more witnesses supporting these claims, I'd more more intrigued. But I want to see the dead restored to life or the boy pull an ET over my house. The 'shut up' that comes from impatience is just symbolic of my right and yours to not have to listen to those who have lost our trust or respect. At times it's seems that theistic complaints are even a bit entitled, as if they don't just want protection from censorship (which they have in the US) but rather a captive audience.

It is an attempt at censorship. — Gregory A

No more, as far as I can see, than in hanging up on a telemarketer or a robocall. We do not owe one another our ears. As a believer in free speech, I think we owe one another only tolerance. I do try to hurt you or lock you away because we disagree and you do the same.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Jefferson

In my experience, theists often fail to note just how moral and even neurotic their foils those pesky agnostic or atheistic liberals can be. Or I wasn't invited to the pansexual key party this month. Hard to say. Neither decency nor smug self-righteousness require religious belief or its absence. In my experience, most people have some kind of patchwork religion of childhood Christianity, self-help books, sci-fi, conspiracy theory. I find the theist/atheist issue way too binary, way too simple. I just want to know that neighbor isn't a maniac who can't deal with not being the center of the world, happy enough in his/her beliefs to not need my approval or admiration.

If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in. — Gregory A

If atheism were valid (which it obviously isn't) wouldn't they still have non-valid theism to talk about?

So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god? — L'éléphant

With all due respect, you need to read a response more carefully.

If every human alive stated that god exists then I would not be calling it a fable, because I would believe it too. — universeness

So I have already answered your second sentence above but not under the condition of 'every human I meet' but under the condition of 'every human alive.' The existence of so many atheists and the fact that the numbers are growing is part of what keeps my own atheism affirmed.
Your label of anecdotal evidence is ultimately, a correct one. Such evidence can be enough to convict someone (rightly or wrongly) of murder, especially when the main evidence is based on the witness statements/testimony in court, only. I am 99.99999% sure gods don't exist. I would use a similar percentage for my 'positive level of confidence,' that I exist.
So no, anecdotal accounts are not absolute proof but they can be 'the best that can be achieved for now,' due to the nature of the question being asked.
So 'can you prove humans dream?' I think the answer is no, you can't absolutely prove it but YES, humans dream. I capitalise, to indicate my level of confidence in my YES. I think if you polled this site membership and asked something like 'What confidence level do you have that human's dream?' 100%, 90% to 100%, between 50% and 90%, between 0% and 50%, 0%. The majority would vote for the range 90% to 100%.
Your point of 'but you can't prove it!' Has no more value than 'You can't prove god exists,' or 'You can't prove the Universe has no origin,' etc.
Asking anyone of these often claimed 'big, deep questions are not, in my opinion' so big or so deep as I never hear an accompanying thunder clap or angelic chorus or even a wee drum roll, when such questions are asked. Asking such questions has never been revelational.

If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in. — Gregory A

This skewed logic of yours is pure sophistry and as I have already stated, insignificant. You just string nonsense together and hope you can get near the bullseye on the dartboard. I think you are not even throwing darts in the same room the dartboard hangs in.

What does Matt Dillahunty talk about on YouTube on a daily basis. What do your nemeses such as Richard Dawkins write books about? What do groups like MythVision discuss on a daily basis.
Do you think your silly metalogic invalidates atheism and actually supports the OP title?
I find it very difficult to offer you anything but scorn and mockery.
You type with the thoughts of a character like a sandwich board man with the words 'Atheism is invalid' chalked on either side as you wander aimlessly up and down the high street exclaiming 'atheists should not speak because they are atheist and because they are all leftists and because they.......well....just because......

The atheist's challenge is not to 'put up' but is to put up or shut up.
— Gregory A
— lll

Imagine a stranger or an acquaintance comes up to you and assures you that their grandmother came back from the dead or that their son leaped over the house. You'd be intrigued. At least I would. But I'd want some evidence pronto and get bored pretty quickly with various excuses. 'No one knew she was dead but me, but really she came back.' Or 'my son can only do it when no one is looking or just me.' If there were more witnesses supporting these claims, I'd more more intrigued. But I want to see the dead restored to life or the boy pull an ET over my house. The 'shut up' that comes from impatience is just symbolic of my right and yours to not have to listen to those who have lost our trust or respect. At times it's seems that theistic complaints are even a bit entitled, as if they don't just want protection from censorship (which they have in the US) but rather a captive audience.

I'm not sure what this 'miracle' stuff has to do with theism. Regardless it does look like you're downplaying atheism's actual intentions which are to take away the rights of those who believe.

Atheism's antipathy for theists is apparent whenever an atheist opens his or her mouth.

You are an unwitting pawn (letting you off lightly) in the battle Left vs Right (know thyself is what some old Greek once said and you should consider doing). Those out of the same mold as yourself will also be atheists which should tell you that you've arrived at your conclusions in a way indistinguishable from theirs. Intellectual arrogance has misled you to believe your 'non-belief' has an actual meaning.

It is an attempt at censorship.
— Gregory A

No more, as far as I can see, than in hanging up on a telemarketer or a robocall. We do not owe one another our ears. As a believer in free speech, I think we owe one another only tolerance. I do try to hurt you or lock you away because we disagree and you do the same.

The Left are out to censor all things that hurt their eyes and ears, theism with its patriarchs is one of those things.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
— Jefferson

In my experience, theists often fail to note just how moral and even neurotic their foils those pesky agnostic or atheistic liberals can be. Or I wasn't invited to the pansexual key party this month. Hard to say. Neither decency nor smug self-righteousness require religious belief or its absence. In my experience, most people have some kind of patchwork religion of childhood Christianity, self-help books, sci-fi, conspiracy theory. I find the theist/atheist issue way too binary, way too simple. I just want to know that neighbor isn't a maniac who can't deal with not being the center of the world, happy enough in his/her beliefs to not need my approval or admiration.

They also fail to notice the ulterior motives atheists have instead naively accepting their non-belief on face-value.

Richard Dawkins toured the USA, the Beatles did too of course but then doesn't that cultural aspect subtract from his Atheism, the evidence adding up to show there is a crime.

The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right.

The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right — Gregory A

:rofl:

So, this is your logic? The left and the right make a whole. So the left is half of the whole. So the left has at best, half of a chance of being RIGHT. Apart from laughing about your poor handling of the words left and right in "LEFT has only half a chance of being RIGHT."
You conflate ratios with politics to try to make a logical point. We have not to consider the moralities of right-wing or left-wing politics, we have just to consider their 50%, coin-toss chance of being correct.
REALLY?

If atheists don't believe in god/s, and atheism relates to theism, then what possibly would an atheist talk about? What would be discussed at an atheists convention (should it exist) if not god/s, something atheists claim to not believe in.
— Gregory A
— universeness

This skewed logic of yours is pure sophistry and as I have already stated, insignificant. You just string nonsense together and hope you can get near the bullseye on the dartboard. I think you are not even throwing darts in the same room the dartboard hangs in.

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it?

But if on the other hand if I should challenge its 'existence' (something only a dummy could do) I would then give credence to the possibility it may exist. I would be bringing myself down to the same level as those who believe it exists. Got it yet?

What does Matt Dillahunty talk about on YouTube on a daily basis. What do your nemeses such as Richard Dawkins write books about? What do groups like MythVision discuss on a daily basis.
Do you think your silly metalogic invalidates atheism and actually supports the OP title?
I find it very difficult to offer you anything but scorn and mockery.
You type with the thoughts of a character like a sandwich board man with the words 'Atheism is invalid' chalked on either side as you wander aimlessly up and down the high street exclaiming 'atheists should not speak because they are atheist and because they are all leftists and because they.......well....just because......

There are many theories and books on the JFK assassination, but only the one assassin, Lee Oswald.

, he at least could have answered some of the questions I asked. — EugeneW

I was looking at the latest YouTube offerings.
Sean Carroll has this:



This is a 3 hour session where he answers questions submitted to him. He must do this on a monthly basis at the moment. Maybe he has answered your questions here? I would assume they would have responded to your email, even if just to tell you to listen to this podcast for your answers but perhaps you need to ask him your questions via this 'mindscape' initiative. I think he explains in the podcast how to submit your questions. I have not listened to this March episode yet but I will. If your answers are not in this one, perhaps you can get them in the April episode.

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it — Gregory A

No, because you just told me you don't believe in the 'flying spaghetti monster.' Why did you do that is your logic demands your silence on that which you don't believe exists? Got it?

But if on the other hand if I should challenge its 'existence' (something only a dummy could do) I would then give credence to the possibility it may exist. I would be bringing myself down to the same level as those who believe it exists. Got it yet — Gregory A

I don't think you should call yourself a dummy for not believing in the 'flying spaghetti monster.'
I agree with you that it doesn't exist, how's that for common ground! Welcome to our same level. Have you got it yet?

There are many theories and books on the JFK assassination, but only the one assassin, Lee Oswald — Gregory A

Yeah? You don't believe the one about the kill shot coming accidentally, from one of his own security men? or the triangular assassins hidden on the 'grassy knoll' etc. Have you got enough space on your sandwich board to reveal the truth about the JFK assassination as well? Do you still not get it yet?

The Right has a set of values, the Left a similar but counter set, meaning one thing the Left has only half of a chance of being right
— Gregory A

:rofl:

So, this is your logic? The left and the right make a whole. So the left is half of the whole. So the left has at best, half of a chance of being RIGHT. Apart from laughing about your poor handling of the words left and right in "LEFT has only half a chance of being RIGHT."
You conflate ratios with politics to try to make a logical point. We have not to consider the moralities of right-wing or left-wing politics, we have just to consider their 50%, coin-toss chance of being correct.
REALLY? — universeness

It is my logic. If x amount of people are on the left, the same number on the right, then given those parameters the Left has only half a chance of being right. The moral of the story, you really should have thought things over before becoming the leftwing extremist that you are.

It is my logic. If x amount of people are on the left, the same number on the right, then given those parameters the Left has only half a chance of being right. The moral of the story, you really should have thought things over before becoming the leftwing extremist that you are. — Gregory A

I am sure that all of the deep thinkers on this forum are duly impressed by the logic or what you have just typed above, or perhaps not. I will leave that for their consideration.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Sorry Gregory A, but I am still laughing at your logic.
I will stop now.......:lol: ....sorry!

Matt Dillahunty gives a very good explanation of atheism in his gumball machine analogy.

The number of gumballs in a machine is either odd or even.
If I tell you that the number is even, do you believe me?
Theism may say yes they do believe me, without requiring a count.
Atheism does not accept the claim due to the lack of convincing evidence.
This does not mean that the atheist takes the alternate view, that the number of gumballs is odd.
They simply hold the VALID position of 'we do not currently know the number of gumballs.'
Atheism is therefore a completely valid position.

Matt suggests this is the correct definition of atheism, it is a rejection of the god posit but does not state that the existence of god is impossible. But Matt has also assigned a 'positive confidence level' to his rejection of the god posit towards a percentage level similar to my own. This does little damage, in my opinion, to the atheist position that god is not impossible.

naturalism — Gregory A

Naturalism is not an escape pod for atheism. Newton, when he established the foundations of science, said something to the effect that only God could've been the one behind the laws of nature of which a handful he enumerated.

There's no arguing with theists. The laws that miracles violate and the miracles themselves, as per theists, are God's work. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Heads I win, tails you lose kinda deal!

:zip:

That seems so odd to say that 'positive confidence level' idea.
In any case that would be so awesome if that's all theism was (just getting epistemologically tricked) (side example, your grandma says "I love you, do you believe me?" This example wouldn't preclude theism/atheism).

No, theism has always been about specific God claims. If theism was purely just the non-starter that is "belief" then why would theists ever disagree with each other.
That epistemological position ("belief") would be doing so much work there and still couldn't do enough.

In any case, the proof is in the pudding, atheists are clearly antagonistic to theists. There's no disbelief/ambiguity there but even if there was, that metric wouldn't be enough to describe the situations or what those words have been/are doing for all of human history (or even one moment).

That seems so odd to say that 'positive confidence level' idea. — Shwah

It's just my attempt to calm the disturbance created by the belief/non-belief or believer/non-believer wave machine.

No theism has always been about specific God claims. If theism was purely just the non-starter that is "belief" then why would theists ever disagree with each other — Shwah

I think you are confusing theism with religion. Theism is the belief that god(s) exist. Atheism states there is insufficient evidence for such a claim. Buddism has no gods, you could call it an atheistic religion as it is not theistic.
Religious people argue about name/practices/tenets/dogma associated with the religion they favour but theism is a mere umbrella term for 'There is a god.'

atheists are clearly antagonistic to theists. — Shwah

Well speaking as an atheist, I certainly am when they are antagonistic towards me or atheism.
You are making a sweeping statement which should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I am rarely antagonistic towards the theism espoused by @EugeneW as I can follow his logic, even though I don't agree with him. He is also not antagonistic towards my commentary in support of atheism.
I am antagonistic towards @Gregory A or the even more illogical @Joe Mello as they are antagonistic and insulting, in my opinion to all who disagree with them.

There's no disbelief/ambiguity there but even if there was, that metric wouldn't be enough to describe the situations or what those words have been/are doing for all of human history (or even one moment). — Shwah

Remember that religion(for or against) has been used as a political football to justify power struggles and slaughter since its inception. The god posit cannot be scapegoated for the behavior of crusaders etc. It is humans who have employed the posit for horrific purposes. It's like blaming socialism for the slaughters committed by maniacal cults of personality such as Nazism, Stalinism or Pol Pot(ism). It's just BS to suggest such. Humans behave like maniacs sometimes, that's not god fault or socialism's fault, these are just abused labels of convenient purpose at the time. Many godly folks and all true socialists/humanists are benevolent towards others, don't tar them with the same brush as some maniac popes/priests/imams/gurus/theosophists/autocrats/aristocrats/plutocrats etc.
If I slaughter 50 worshipping Muslims and I shout 'I do this in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord my God.' Does that make those two characters responsible for my actions or is it totally down to me? I'm sure you agree that its the latter. We need to stop accepting the labels that evil people use to justify the evil they do. Nefarious individuals cannot be trusted to 'tell it like it truly is.'

You seem to be showing even more how inaccurate saying "theism is just belief" is or you're showing a worse claim "theism cannot be a purely linguistic claim (as it can lead to issues)" but that latter would apply to anything and never manage to supplant the issues/inaccuracies of using an epistemological position for theism (or any -ism really) and it seems circular anyways ("what is theism? It's belief in God", perhaps god-fearingly so).

In any case, religion itself is an application of a theistic claim. There is possibly, in the philosophy of religion, a pentaune (five-in-one) God with distinct possible derivations and thought puzzles which may intuit issues or benefits in the triune God vs the unitarian God. Keep in mind that no religion of a pentaune God exists.

I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm a non-believer in what is an impossibility.
Consequently, I can have nothing to say about this thing I do not believe exists. Got it
— Gregory A
— universeness

No, because you just told me you don't believe in the 'flying spaghetti monster.' Why did you do that is your logic demands your silence on that which you don't believe exists? Got it?

No, referencing something that my adversaries have constructed is not at odds with my non-belief.

But if on the other hand if I should challenge its 'existence' (something only a dummy could do) I would then give credence to the possibility it may exist. I would be bringing myself down to the same level as those who believe it exists. Got it yet
— Gregory A

I don't think you should call yourself a dummy for not believing in the 'flying spaghetti monster.'
I agree with you that it doesn't exist, how's that for common ground! Welcome to our same level. Have you got it yet?

I have not challenged 'its existence' as it is an impossibility from the start, something I'd made clear in my first line.

There are many theories and books on the JFK assassination, but only the one assassin, Lee Oswald
— Gregory A

Yeah? You don't believe the one about the kill shot coming accidentally, from one of his own security men? or the triangular assassins hidden on the 'grassy knoll' etc. Have you got enough space on your sandwich board to reveal the truth about the JFK assassination as well? Do you still not get it yet?

No, you are not going to corner me in with words. And I've never believed anything other than the Warren Commision's finding based on the evidence available. All else unsuported by facts. I'm a non-believer in a conspiracy, consequently I have nothing to say about it. Still don't get it yet?.

Sorry Gregory A, but I am still laughing at your logic.
I will stop now.......:lol: ....sorry! — universeness

No problem. I'm embarrassed by your stupidity.

Matt Dillahunty gives a very good explanation of atheism in his gumball machine analogy.

The number of gumballs in a machine is either odd or even.
If I tell you that the number is even, do you believe me?
Theism may say yes they do believe me, without requiring a count.
Atheism does not accept the claim due to the lack of convincing evidence.
This does not mean that the atheist takes the alternate view, that the number of gumballs is odd.
They simply hold the VALID position of 'we do not currently know the number of gumballs.'
Atheism is therefore a completely valid position.

Matt suggests this is the correct definition of atheism, it is a rejection of the god posit but does not state that the existence of god is impossible. But Matt has also assigned a 'positive confidence level' to his rejection of the god posit towards a percentage level similar to my own. This does little damage, in my opinion, to the atheist position that god is not impossible.
an hour ago — universeness

Naturalism is not an escape pod for atheism. Newton, when he established the foundations of science, said something to the effect that only God could've been the one behind the laws of nature of which a handful he enumerated.

There's no arguing with theists. The laws that miracles violate and the miracles themselves, as per theists, are God's work. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Heads I win, tails you lose kinda deal! — Agent Smith

There is no escape for atheism. The 'this is what we've been waiting for' thing that they will try and lay on us if science suggests God is a possibility, will not work. That escape is covered. Naturailsm is not a non-belief in God, but is a 'belief' in Nature, a naturally occurring universe. Atheism, as the term suggests, says nothing about Nature. Miracles? You must be talking about religion? What does that have to do with theism really?

Heads you win, tails I lose? :chin:

You seem to be showing even more how inaccurate saying "theism is just belief" is or you're showing a worse claim "theism cannot be a purely linguistic claim (as it can lead to issues)" but that latter would apply to anything and never manage to supplant the issues/inaccuracies of using an epistemological position for theism (or any -ism really) and it seems circular anyways ("what is theism? It's belief in God", perhaps god-fearingly so) — Shwah

I think that sometimes, a philosophical approach to the application of logic (as an epistemology) can be too literalist and at other times, not literalist enough and I think this often throws philosophical thinking into circles. I don't struggle with what you are trying to project on to me. I find 'theism is a belief that god exists,' literally or linguistically easy. I don't get 'over excited' by the possible extremity of abuses or human interpretations of the theistic posit which result in maniacal consequential actions. "If you don't believe as we do and don't do and live as we say, then we will kill you." Is a threat that has existed amongst humans since we evolved the ability to think. The fact that a religious or political doctrine is often manipulated to support such, is a distraction. Using statements such as 'I do this in the name of god/an ism or even just because 'I can' or 'because you cant stop me,' is down to the problem of bad human ethics rather than any inaccurately labeled excuse an individual or group might employ for their own nefarious reasons or as a more complicated and clever attempt at subterfuge (eg the invention of the Jesus Christ character).

In any case, religion itself is an application of a theistic claim — Shwah

Yes, it is but do you accept that the tenets/rules of particular examples are most likely solely produced by human musings alone and have zero contribution from anything supernatural?

There is possibly, in the philosophy of religion, a pentaune (five-in-one) God with distinct possible derivations and thought puzzles which may intuit issues or benefits in the triune God vs the unitarian God. Keep in mind that no religion of a pentaune God exists. — Shwah

You are just demonstrating human musings on possible religous manifestations. You are demonstrating what I am talking about. Do you think this pentaune god exists? Did it speak to you in your head and tell you to post about it on this thread? or are you just 'thinking' about gods?

Watching materialistic atheists write about the "evidence" for the existence of God as if they're looking for this evidence on a microscope slide is exhausting.

And watching these same limited analytical minds do it on a Philosophy forum is laughable.

Aristotle wasn't "religious", and he is known as "The Philosopher". And he came to numerous well-thought-out step-by-step conclusions, after simply observing the physical universe, that the existence of an omnipotent God was a necessity. How many of today's atheists do you think have read through Aristotle's "Metaphysics" to see for themselves if his logic is sound? Well, actually, how many of today's atheists actually could read through it?

John Locke certainly wasn't religious, and some consider him to be the greatest philosopher, and he stated this:
"Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all."

I was just accused above of being illogical. Was I accused by a philosopher, or one of today's atheists with an agenda? I have a Philosophy degree, so I know what is illogical and what isn't. When I wrote awhile back on this forum that from the discovery of our universe expanding outward from a single point at an ever-increasing speed, we can logically deduce that an omnipotent power is the power behind the "dark energy" causing this expansion, and not a finite power, which could not be behind it. How is this illogical?

And I wrote many other actual logical reasonings that only one or two members of this forum had the thinking to address coherently.

Today's atheists are not philosophers, and that they have taken over a forum called "The Philosophy Forum" has been in my experience a lot like Alice falling down the rabbit hole and discovering all sorts of characters who don't make a lick of sense.

No, referencing something that my adversaries have constructed is not at odds with my non-belief. — Gregory A

Yeah, even though based on the logic that you employ, you should not be doing so.
You have no belief in the spaghetti monster so you cant reference it. It would be illogical for you to do so based on your own application of logic!

No, you are not going to corner me in with words. And I've never believed anything other than the Warren Commision's finding based on the evidence available. All else unsuported by facts. I'm a non-believer in a conspiracy, consequently I have nothing to say about it. Still don't get it yet? — Gregory A

Well, yes, I do see the massive flaws in how you form your belief system, I do get that.
If you lived in Russia right now and you listened to your beloved state TV channel, you would no doubt be singing Putin's praises. The words 'I've never believed anything other than the Warren commission's findings show that. So, you accept the 'magic bullet' theory then?

No problem. I'm embarrassed by your stupidity — Gregory A

Well I'm glad I have the power to embarrass you, even if its inspire by your delusional thinking.

There is no escape for atheism. The 'this is what we've been waiting for' thing that they will try and lay on us if science suggests God is a possibility, will not work. That escape is covered. Naturailsm is not a non-belief in God, but is a 'belief' in Nature, a naturally occurring universe. Atheism, as the term suggests, says nothing about Nature. Miracles? You must be talking about religion? What does that have to do with theism really? — Gregory A

Yeah, keep tubthumping on your tin bath, see if the echo's progress your proposals?

a lot like Alice falling down the rabbit hole and discovering all sorts of characters who don't make a lick of sense. — Joe Mello

The story of Alice in wonderland is another fable, Joe, it didn't really happen!
Have you placed your degree in philosophy next to old pictures of your many cars, numerous old female admirers, your earlier bodybuilding physique, your days in the monastery smiling beside your fellow monks and I am sure, your many other memorable moments and thought about 'what it all means?'
Is your best answer 'god did all this for me!' and after I pass (hopefully a long long time from now Joe.)
I will live with it forever at its place and I won't have to hear these nasty atheists again.
Am I anywhere near your belief system Joe after your 70+ years on this planet, living as a human.