Humanity and God

[SoylentGreen]

Of course you can so can a theist, but the atheist position is that they do not believe in any god(s), where you seem to be unwilling to make that claim. You wish to see every theist's claim and then reject it at that point. In fact theists often make arguments against god(s) that are not the ones they worship. It does not make you anymore an atheist than t does them.

Let me see if I have this right. So as an atheist your saying that you have some magical unnamed ability that makes your disbelief in god somehow more valid that of anyone else's disbelief? Somehow being able to label yourself atheist validates disbelief. This is what you are saying isn't it?

That if a theist points out why someone else has a false belief in a god their argument can be immediately dismissed just on the basis that they are a theist?
That because I am not an atheist I have no ability to make any comment on atheism. Which is a bit like agreeing that because your not a theist any position you take on theism must be false.

[BlackSheep]

You appear to keep missing the point that I have said nothing that stops me from being an atheist. Once someone describes a god I am quite capable of disbelieving the description given.

I am not missing what you are saying, but that s not an atheist. Most theists deny all gods but one and yet they are not atheists. Your position is that you refuted gods when presented t you and only then. As far as I can see that is not claiming you do not believe in any god(s).

I am starting to doubt that you are listening. You appear to be doing your best to ignore the fact that I have repeatedly stated that i can take the position of atheist once a theist describes their god.

Oh I am reading. You take the position of a skeptic possibly, but I suggest not an atheist.

Yes exactly because it fails to take in details. Details such as no one actually made that argument except her. This is not rocket science , mathematical exactness is not required. This is people giving opinions and attention to detail stops people like you ignoring the statements made by me.

As an atheist I do not believe in gods. That is powerful spiritual entities. No details there whatsoever. If someone wishes to challenge my claim I am more than happy to ave them do so. They can add in details, but I doubt that will change much.

You last sentence there makes no sense.

I can only guess at what claim you are referring to. If it is the claim I made in reference to this "spiritual 'thing" of yours then the claim was "god lacks detail"
Which you fortunately provided a good example of.

You said "There you are very wrong, when it comes to debating god the devil is always in the details." Not that my definition lacks detail. My point was that my definition lacks detail and that detail is unnecessary. Please support that "the devil is always in the details".

The problem is that I have never met a theist who believed in a generic god, nor have I ever met someone with a belief in spirituality who lacked specific details of that belief. So such knowledge as you have generic and unspecific means nothing.

Please explain how those details are relevant. If I could prove no gods exist and someone were to say, but my god has a beard, how would that change anything? As an atheist I have no belief in gods. Please explain how general knowledge means nothing.

And again I state I have no difficulty with the concept that once someone lets us know what their definition is we can begin an argument about god. It is not the definition I have problems with so I have no issue, the issue is all yours.

You missed the point. Why is god different than any other word?

Of course a theist can, quite simply. All a theist has to do is deny that she is referring to his god, that her belief is nothing more than a strawman of his position. What can she do, insist that her version is the one true god? A difficult position for someone who claims to an atheist, don't you think?

Then you ask the theist to describe their god and proceed accordingly which is what I said.

[BlackSheep]

Also through this thread i have given a rebuttal every time you made that unsupported assumption. I understand your inability to provide even one statement by me that backs your claim because there isn't one. I wonder when you will admit that this is nothing more than your assumption, and has nothing to do with anything I have said.

I am confused. What claim is it you are talking about that you have rebutted throughout this thread?

And Yes I am doing it the right way when i point out that a particular technique of debating will lead to a failure.

There right way to do what?

[BlackSheep]

Let me see if I have this right. So as an atheist your saying that you have some magical unnamed ability that makes your disbelief in god somehow more valid that of anyone else's disbelief? Somehow being able to label yourself atheist validates disbelief. This is what you are saying isn't it?

Not at all. You claimed specifically "Because it is not a case of I don't believe in X, it is a case of I do not know of x" when we were taking about gods. So you said essentially that you no have a disbelief in gods, but rather you do not know of gods.

Being an atheist does not validate anything is simply is a label that says I have no belief in gods, something you deny.

That if a theist points out why someone else has a false belief in a god their argument can be immediately dismissed just on the basis that they are a theist?

I don't dismiss anyone out of hand. I expect objective evidence and have seen none so I have no belief. The subjective evidence I have seen very rarely has much to do with details. In general it is very vague and is rationalized towards their particular belief.

That because I am not an atheist I have no ability to make any comment on atheism. Which is a bit like agreeing that because your not a theist any position you take on theism must be false.

My comments were targeted on a few things.
1. You seem to believe you are an atheist and have been presenting yourself as such.
2. Your self description would seem to demonstrate you are not an atheist.
3. You seem to be basing your comments on atheists on yourself and your philosophy.

I don't claim to be right about gods. I claim to not have any belief in gods. I claim to have seen no objective evidence of any gods.

I do claim your comments about what the place of an atheist are to be misguided. Atheists have no place, they just don't believe in gods.

[DragonFly]

So as an atheist your saying that you have some magical unnamed ability that makes your disbelief in god somehow more valid that of anyone else's disbelief? Somehow being able to label yourself atheist validates disbelief.

That if a theist points out why someone else has a false belief in a god their argument can be immediately dismissed just on the basis that they are a theist?

For me, the theist has nothing, for unsupported ‘magic’ doesn’t do anything, and s/he is deceptive for preaching it as truth. Two strikes. The reasons for the persistent nature of strong belief can be shown scientifically. Three strikes.

So, we go on to seeing if ‘God’ is even possible, for the preachings of notions as fact can cause big problems in the world (which is a fourth strike).

The atheist uses science, not a magical unnamed ability, showing that complexities cannot be First, but must even come way later, as just higher evolved beings, and thus not ‘God’ This is a home run. Strike five on the theists.

We accept that some theists can’t change, and that some even becomes extremists. Drones wipe them out every day, not because of their beliefs but because of the harm that they do.

The atheist continues to use science and reason, while the theists cannot, we showing the reasoning that universe has to come from nothing, this confirmed by the zero-sum balance of opposites seen in nature, as well as knowing that there is nothing to make anything of. This is the second home run. Strike six.

Some theists can’t change but they begin to die off. For the rest, church attendance drops, even in the once stable U.S. Northeast. Some churches and schools close, consolidating. Religions begin to stress human support systems over the God dogma of the mythic age.

Debates continue, though, as ever, only the atheists being able to employ non-magic. The theists still want ‘God’, for the notion is a comfort, but can only have it via magic.

Some, like William Lane Craig, realize that that all things must have beginnings; however, this would include beings and Gods, but this doesn’t fly for them, since ‘God’ has to be First and Fundamental, so they wish to exempt ‘God’ from their own realization. Strike seven.

They want eternal things, namely ‘God’, but eternal things don’t come from anywhere or anything, which is the same as from nothing, and only simple, continuous functions as things without parts can be first, as things, giving rise to very tiny ‘elementary’ simple particles that can recombine and go through phase changes to form more composite and complex stable structures on up to beings, but this takes many billions of years.

Looking back, and downward, we see that the simpler and simpler gets more and more unstable, the more and more stabler being in the other, upward direction. The simplest state, which we can easily conceive of, is the lack of anything—nothing, and so that state has to be perfectly unstable. Strike eight.

Even if we grant that the simple, base existents could have been around forever, then they were never made, and so there was no creation or Creator. Yet, whence their overall amount, and their individual properties, as so made and defined, if never made and defined?

‘God’ has been disproved via self-contradiction, for the complex cannot be first, and disproved again, by having no presence in the origin of the universe as either the base existents being from nothing, as shown, or they have been around forever (an incomplete notion, but the only other option).

Some theists still continue, as they must, having grooved themselves, but get bypassed, by many governments.

More and more books come out against religion and theism, which was once unheard of, at large, the readers ever learning more. Theists retreat to saying that the Bible, once claimed to be of plain and simple text for the common man, is really but symbolic, with only experts being able to decode it.

The notion of ‘God’ is in full retreat. Science and observation shows that spirits, good or evil, do not cause good deeds or ‘sins’, that praying for the very sick does not help them, that amputees do not grow back their limbs by any miracles, that evolution is true, that nature operates naturally, with nothing extra-, beyond-, or supernatural going on—with no such things as planets freezing in their orbits, or anything.

The theists have nothing, while the atheists have everything, and the agnostics don’t even have probability.

Now it is up to the theists who want to engage not only to undo the analysis, but to replace it with their own, but magic will not sell a bill of goods, nor even produce one.

Case dismissed.

[srosenb1]

whatever. =/

[DragonFly]

whatever. =/

Either the 'what' was ever or it is of nothing. 'God' struck out.

Onto other, real, things

Thanks for the inspiration.

[Charlatan]

Either the 'what' was ever or it is of nothing. 'God' struck out.

Onto other, real, things

Thanks for the inspiration.

What harm is there in believeing in god? It makes you do good things, for a reason, yes, but good things abound. charity, absence of crimes - if there is true belief - and so forth. On the other hand you get some people not sending thier terminally ill children to some hospitals and instead to church. mountains versus molehills.

I would swear you in particular, due to your debating, has something personal with the figment of god? Why do you take it so personally, it is not about you. this is a debate forum where we express ideas, not lynch helpless gods. i am not complaining, i am just pointing out the tone of your posts is always one of seeming to look down on people that believe in god, and that is personal.

But, back to topic. Can you prove there is no god? hmmmmmmm?

[grandpa]

What harm is there in believeing in god?
It makes you do good things, for a reason, yes,
but good things abound.

I'm no brainiac, but I'm pretty sure religious people do plenty of bad things, too. In fact, religion often turns ordinary aspects of life into bad things called "sin." These can even be every day bodily functions. Religion had fulfilled nothing.

Grandpa h.

[BlackSheep]

What harm is there in believeing in god?

What harm is there believing in fairies? Dragons? Vampires? Bigfoot? or is gods you don't believe in?

It makes you do good things, for a reason, yes, but good things abound. charity, absence of crimes - if there is true belief - and so forth. On the other hand you get some people not sending thier terminally ill children to some hospitals and instead to church. mountains versus molehills.

I disagree belief in a god inherently makes you do good things. I know many atheists and many theists and I really don't see any great disparity in them doing good things. In fact in my personal experience it seems to me the people who do the most good things are atheists, agnostics and people with 'weak' faith.

And don't forget the ratio of atheists in prisons vs not in prisons.

[DragonFly]

What harm is there in believeing in god? It makes you do good things, for a reason, yes, but good things abound. charity, absence of crimes - if there is true belief - and so forth.

Some do behave better, out of fear, but the civil laws have the same principles, and people may not like to end up in jail or Hell. Such morality long preceded Moses.

On the other hand, the non-existent 'goods' of some believers causes anything contrary to be labeled 'evil', and so they go to war, even against other faiths, and especially against other religions since the mere existence of the creeds seems to lessen their own credibility.

I would swear you in particular, due to your debating, has something personal with the figment of god? Why do you take it so personally, it is not about you. this is a debate forum where we express ideas, not lynch helpless gods. i am not complaining, i am just pointing out the tone of your posts is always one of seeming to look down on people that believe in god, and that is personal.

The search was for truth, wherever it led, and so the idea of 'God' died, becoming really, really dead, and so some can claim 'God' was lynched, so to speak. Believers are unethical to proclaim 'God' as truth and fact. Every time you lie you murder a part of the world. Flawed debate wouldn't go over here.

But, back to topic. Can you prove there is no god? hmmmmmmm?

Allready did, in this thread, even recapped it a post or two ago.

[SoylentGreen]

I am not missing what you are saying, but that s not an atheist. Most theists deny all gods but one and yet they are not atheists. Your position is that you refuted gods when presented t you and only then. As far as I can see that is not claiming you do not believe in any god(s).

Oh I am reading. You take the position of a skeptic possibly, but I suggest not an atheist.



As an atheist I do not believe in gods. That is powerful spiritual entities. No details there whatsoever. If someone wishes to challenge my claim I am more than happy to ave them do so. They can add in details, but I doubt that will change much.
.

All of this is pointless. Whether i am an atheist or not does nothing to invalidate my position.

You last sentence there makes no sense.

Yes it does you have deliberately ignored my responses to your assumption that I am trying to tell atheists what to do. My paying attention to that detail is what makes your assumption worthless.

You said "There you are very wrong, when it comes to debating god the devil is always in the details." Not that my definition lacks detail. My point was that my definition lacks detail and that detail is unnecessary. Please support that "the devil is always in the details".

And my point is that without those details all you have is a generic sense of god of which I have yet to meet even one theist who believes in a generic god. Therefore your generic knowledge has little value in any debate with a theist

Please explain how those details are relevant. If I could prove no gods exist and someone were to say, but my god has a beard, how would that change anything? As an atheist I have no belief in gods. Please explain how general knowledge means nothing.

Which god did you prove does not exist? Was it the one who has a beard because it would seem there is still one theist who disputes your proof.

Or is it that your argument is that you believe there is only one true god and that having you prove it does not exist mean that any theist claiming a god with a beard must be talking about a false god.

You missed the point. Why is god different than any other word?

No difference, take any wotd you like, completely blur the definition to the point where every individual has their own personal definition of it and we have the same problem. Is it your argument then that every word suffers the same problem?

Then you ask the theist to describe their god and proceed accordingly which is what I said

Exactly what I said, once a theist reveals what a god is then we can proceed, until then you have only your own opinion of a god.