To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

DLH said:
But if a god is basically anyone or anything attributed might or venerated, whether metaphorical, fictional, mythological, supernatural or mortal human then the statement that there are no god(s) is inherently false. Why not say instead, that atheism is the disbelief in the supernatural?
Click to expand...


Before you go on to the next stage in the typical sophistry presented time and again have a look at these posts

Leumas said:
How do you know there is no $%^&D$#?

Do you think there can be any evidence presented for $%^&D$# which you would accept?

You see unless we agree on a precise, non-illusive, concrete, well documented and clearly outlined definition for $%^&D$# you cannot possibly answer the questions rationally..... right?

So the answer to your questions is..... define "God"!

Give me a coherent definition for this "God" and I can then apply the Scientific Method to it and determine the validity of the hypothesis and then write a scientific journal paper presenting my findings for MANY of my peers to review and verify that I have not in fact fallen prey to one or many of the all sorts of ways even scientists can fool themselves.

After that we may then see if other hypotheses fit the data better than your hypothesis and we go on from there until eventually it becomes an accepted THEORY which we can for all intents and purposes rest assured that it is fact until another genius comes along and modifies or augments or outright falsifies the theory.

You see all the "god" hypotheses up to about 200 years ago were considered fact by the advocates of the various competing hypotheses and even killed each other trying to prove whose was the correct one.

But then new geniuses came along and made all those older "facts" obsolete in the light of new data.

So I advise you to consider really carefully when you are setting down the definition of this new hypothesis of "God"..... and remember that to even begin to qualify as worthy of being considered by the scientific method, it has to be possible to falsify.... I hope you know what that means.
Click to expand...


Leumas said:
marplots said:
That's interesting. Does it mean I can't be an atheist because I don't have a clear definition of what God is?
....
Click to expand...


See... you are now trying to sneak in an underhanded equivocation.

Notice what I said here

Leumas said:
You see all the "god" hypotheses up to about 200 years ago were considered fact by the advocates of the various competing hypotheses and even killed each other trying to prove whose was the correct one.

But then new geniuses came along and made all those older "facts" obsolete in the light of new data.
Click to expand...


So you see when I say I am an atheist I am so in regards to the all but countless and already quite debunked and long dead theos-hypotheses from the annals of human benightedness and folly.
If you have a new hypothesis then we will wait and see if it will be debunked like all the others or if you will be the most famous human being to have ever existed as the INVENTOR of the only GOD that has not yet been debunked.

Are you up to the challenge....can you at least give us a sneak peek at this "God" of yours?... remember it has to be falsifiable.
Click to expand...

Leumas said:
Now repeat this exercise for the more than a million Theos that the fecund but yet benighted imagination of people from the epochs of human infancy and adolescence have dreamt up.

I think that mono-theists will find that they are strong/positive a-X where X is every other god that is not the one they have been inculcated and indoctrinated into (sometimes even auto-inculcated).

The difference between the weak/negative atheist and the monotheist is that the weak atheist is in the final throes of his Cognitive Dissonance and cannot quite yet make that extra tiny step of becoming like the monotheists who are positive/strong a-every-other-god-but-theirs.

The difference between a naught-theist and a mono-theist is just that one last Theo for which they have become strong/positive a-Theo.

The weak/negative a-this-one-final-theo is basically in his final pangs of Cognitive Dissonance.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DLH said:
But if a god is basically anyone or anything attributed might or venerated, whether metaphorical, fictional, mythological, supernatural or mortal human then the statement that there are no god(s) is inherently false. Why not say instead, that atheism is the disbelief in the supernatural?
Click to expand...


Yes...there we go... metaphors


Leumas said:
Navigator said:
Crazy just how many terms there are which don't signify there generally understood meaning.
Click to expand...


To theists it seems to be the ENTIRE DICTIONARY.

Especially when it suits their purposes in obfuscating while using casuistry to assuage their cognitive dissonance.

Any messy or embarrassingly stupid or vile or heinous bits in their scriptures become open to interpretation as metaphors to god knows what and allegories to no one knows what except of course the one who is claiming allegories and metaphors since he, as a theist who spoke to god in one of his sessions with god obviously knows how to interpret those metaphors and allegories and mistranslated bits that ought to be taken in the paleo-sociological and paleo-geographical and paleo-anthropological and paleo-theological context which he of course knows how to do better than any mere atheist could ever do.
Click to expand...
 
DLH said:
But if a god is basically anyone or anything attributed might or venerated, whether metaphorical, fictional, mythological, supernatural or mortal human then the statement that there are no god(s) is inherently false. Why not say instead, that atheism is the disbelief in the supernatural?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, theists have made themselves the standard by which others are judged. Until recently, they made the laws (and still do, in many cases). They shun or preach against those who don't think as they do. There just hasn't been that kind of organized and vehement support for most supernatural non-god beliefs, and thus no need to come up with a label for asupernaturalists.

Why don't you like the words the way they are? What bothers you about the label "atheist" as it's currently used and understood? I bet if you asked 100 Christians if they considered Moses to be a god, none would say yes. Enlarging the label "god" to include millions, probably billions of people adds confusion, not clarity.
 
Pup said:
Traditionally, theists have made themselves the standard by which others are judged. Until recently, they made the laws (and still do, in many cases). They shun or preach against those who don't think as they do. There just hasn't been that kind of organized and vehement support for most supernatural non-god beliefs, and thus no need to come up with a label for asupernaturalists.

Why don't you like the words the way they are? What bothers you about the label "atheist" as it's currently used and understood? I bet if you asked 100 Christians if they considered Moses to be a god, none would say yes. Enlarging the label "god" to include millions, probably billions of people adds confusion, not clarity.
Click to expand...


Bingo!!!

That is exactly the aim of all this semantic legerdemain and linguistic chicanery.

And what is the point of all the this lingual sleight of hand?

It is to divert attention away from the other hand shoving a rabbit God through the illogic trap door.

DLH said:
God is anything or anyone which is attributed a might greater than the one attributing it, and or is venerated. Supernatural, natural, mortal human, metaphorical, mythological, factional or fictional. Whether or not it exists.
Click to expand...


And while one is awe struck and dazed by the amazing conjuring of God right out of thick illogic and not paying attention to any of it, the stuff below is pulled out from under the cape:

DLH said:
Like, in the past, with squid and whales? Or in the present with string theory and black holes? Okay. Shouldn't take long. Just include the above definition and they should be able to sort it out. Unless they have some disturbing psychosis with the simple concept and how it has been abused in the past.

Well, we wouldn't want that, after all, in the dark ages one was intellectually inferior if they didn't accept theology and astrology, it's taken us long enough to substitute it with our own propaganda and xenophobia.

Hmmm - fanatical devotion in the face of opposition? That does sound new, boss. Meet the new, same as the old?
Click to expand...


and this one

DLH said:
If the skeptic claims there are no gods it seems merely a inferiority complex, a social and political frustration with being a minority with no voice. It's comparable to repeatedly referring to a republic, where 99% of the people can't interfere with the rights of 1% as a democracy in which 51% of the people can interfere with the rights of 49% as if it were a good idea.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DLH said:
I don't. Nor would I label myself by it or devote time refuting it on a website, even if everyone else did - even if, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they did say $%^&D$#!
Click to expand...


So why have you JUST JOINED this forum?

If it is all meaningless rubbish... why have you gone to all the trouble of signing up to this forum?

And out of ALL THE OTHER threads that you could have jumped into... you chose this particular one which according to you is a pointless exercise?

DLH said:
Leumas said:
You see unless we agree on a precise, non-illusive, concrete, well documented and clearly outlined definition for $%^&D$# you cannot possibly answer the questions rationally..... right?
Click to expand...

Of course I can. We would simply start off by establishing how you got it wrong.
Click to expand...

:boggled::eye-poppi:eek:

If only you could fathom how irrational and illogical your above statement is!!
 
Last edited:
And thus it starts

DLH said:
Which makes it obvious that it is a social, political and legislative issue having less to do with theology. Thus the disregard for accurate terminology.
Click to expand...


DLH said:
If the skeptic claims there are no gods it seems merely a inferiority complex, a social and political frustration with being a minority with no voice.
Click to expand...


DLH said:
It's comparable to repeatedly referring to a republic, where 99% of the people can't interfere with the rights of 1% as a democracy in which 51% of the people can interfere with the rights of 49% as if it were a good idea.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
DLH said:
...
No, it adds clarity to billions of people. So then believers as well as unbelievers would have a more accurate understanding, promoting tolerance and dispelling ignorance.
....
Click to expand...


That would be nice if only Theists actually did it and stopped doing this

Leumas said:
No, we are only trying to make them stop shoving their world view down everyone's throat whenever they can get away with it.

We are only trying to demonstrate how their world view is wrong only because they think that it is so correct that they cannot resist the need to enforce it upon everyone by making it the laws of the land.

It is not positive atheists that are

Please read some history to find out who are the ones that have done harm for millennia to the whole world.

While we are busy fending off allegations of being "scary nasty totalitarian fundamentalist atheists" hurled at us by self-admitted reformed hateful "fundamentalist atheists" this stuff is going on:

Vision America's Rick Scarborough was a guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program recently, where he explained that God is blessing the state of Texas because "Christians have infiltrated" and taken over the state GOP. Scarborough was discussing his efforts to mobilize right-wing pastors to get involved in politics across the nation and noting that he has had a great deal of success in Texas; so much so that if one now attends an annual Republican Party convention in Texas, it feels as if one is attending a revival meeting.​

It is not positive atheists that are trying to enforce their world view wherever they can.

It is not atheists that are insidiously trying to dominate the "seven mountains of power" and take over the country.

While we argue on forums whether negative atheism is nicer than the positive one they are pressing on quietly with their strategic plans.

From Here
The George Grant quote cited below comes from a book he published in 1987 with Dominion Press, entitled The Changing of the Guard. Yes, they have been aiming for this for a very long time. And for a very long time they have worked under the cover of our ignorance. Who could have predicted a few nut cases could ever acquire such influence in our politics and our military? (No apologies to Condoleeza Rice).
"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ-to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land – of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations."​

[imgw=400]http://spagmonster.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/christian-persecution.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=400]http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/bcf6a53b82badb9a8503facb73b2a45d_zps8558b72f.jpg[/imgw]

[imgw=400]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_512824eb207d719dc1.jpg[/imgw]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DLH said:
....
No, it adds clarity to billions of people. So then believers as well as unbelievers would have a more accurate understanding, promoting tolerance and dispelling ignorance.
....
Click to expand...


Have you looked at the news recently?

From the looks of it redefining words like homosexual as gay did nothing to promote understanding nor tolerance nor did it dispel ignorance.

If this is a precedent then I doubt your attempts at redefining atheism is going to do much. Especially with you coming here calling atheists on your very first day of joining
  • "...disturbing psychosis..."
  • "...propaganda and xenophobia..."
  • "...fanatical devotion in the face of opposition..."
  • "...inferiority complex..."
  • "...tolerance and dispelling ignorance..."

Not to mention that on your very first post you try to make this sound as if it were pure wisdom of love and tolerance.

DLH said:
What exactly do you mean by know?

Do we know we evolved or do we know we were created, for example, is ultimately impossible considering we weren't there. There could be speculation after the fact but knowledge in the sense that we know for certain one of those occurred seems unlikely.
Click to expand...


And that is on top of committing no less than FIVE illogical fallacies in just one post
  1. Not a True Scotsman
  2. Ad Hominem
  3. Poisoning the well
  4. Appeal to redicule
  5. Ignoratio elenchi
 
Last edited:
DLH said:
No, it adds clarity to billions of people. So then believers as well as unbelievers would have a more accurate understanding, promoting tolerance and dispelling ignorance.
Click to expand...

Expanding the definition of "god" to match what you want, if it were even possible, would not accomplish the above. There would still be believer and unbelievers, because there would still be supernatural gods different from mundane "gods" like one's boss or governor. Those who believed in particular supernatural gods would still think that unbelievers in their god deserved to be tortured for eternity.

If the skeptic claims there are no gods it seems merely a inferiority complex, a social and political frustration with being a minority with no voice.
Click to expand...
If a skeptic claims there are no gods, by the normal definition, it's because she believes there are no gods. If you change the definition, the skeptic will then believe there are some gods but not others.

That's what theists believe right now, by the current definition of god, and there's no shortage of hatred and wars between different factions of theists today. Changing the definition won't change what people actually believe or do in real life.
 
DLH said:
What exactly do you mean by know?

Do we know we evolved or do we know we were created, for example, is ultimately impossible considering we weren't there. There could be speculation after the fact but knowledge in the sense that we know for certain one of those occurred seems unlikely.
Click to expand...


The human form obviously evolves.
Consciousness obviously evolves in relation to the human form.

You have offered 2 contrasting (and often opposing) views in relation to your question, but how do you know there is not a third option?

Understandably we cannot know if biological form was created initially and then left to its own devices (evolved) or if it just happened - all be it without reason.

We don't know. What we do know is that we exist. Therefore we need not believe that we exist.

We know.

In relation to god idea(s), there is no way to be able to find supporting evidence for these being actually real, therefore one must believe or not believe or have no beliefs whichever way.

We don't know.

If - for example - it could be successfully argued that the overall consciousness of humanity and its effects (historical, present and future) in relation to its position in the universe can be regarded as a god, then it could be said that we know of at least one god which exists, therefore we would not need to believe it exists. The evidence for it existing is apparent.

Belief therefore has to do with not knowing.

To believe without knowing is irrational.

The rational position is to have no beliefs about the ideas and existence of god(s).
 

Attachments

  • Beliefs.jpg
    Beliefs.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 3
Daylightstar said:
The most rational thing to do with respect to the idea of a god existing, is to point out the lack of any meaningful evidence.
Click to expand...

Not so.

"In relation to god idea(s), there is no way to be able to find supporting evidence for these being actually real,"

Therefore it is irrational to demand evidence for something which cannot by its nature BE evident.

:p
 
Navigator said:
If - for example - it could be successfully argued that the overall consciousness of humanity and its effects (historical, present and future) in relation to its position in the universe can be regarded as a god, then it could be said that we know of at least one god which exists, therefore we would not need to believe it exists. The evidence for it existing is apparent.
Click to expand...


This god you describe above will thus be riddled with diseased and fickle and criminal and crazy and degenerate parts, since much of humanity have those adjectives correctly describing their consciousness.

Not much of a god I tell you!


Navigator said:
....To believe without knowing is irrational.
Click to expand...


Excellent.... you are 90% of the way to making a breakthrough.

The 10% you are missing is something that you seem to be ignoring, I think deliberately, despite many people pointing it out to you many times.

I do not KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow.... I believe it will.

So is that irrational? It is belief without knowing....so why is it not irrational? ... well, at least I hope you do not think it is irrational.

The reason it is not irrational to believe the sun is most likely going to rise tomorrow is that 10% you are missing.... it is called Practical Realism.

Leumas said:
Navigator said:
Why does evidence and reason cause people to believe?
Click to expand...


Evidence and reason cause people (rational and logical ones that is) to KNOW and therefore go on to believe....not to just believe....to KNOW and thus believe!

The crux of it is the evidence part combined with rational logical evaluation of the evidence.

If the evidence is correct and true and sound and relevant and not manipulated or deceptive according to reasoned and logical and rational standards for evaluating the evidence then it becomes knowledge.

Once someone knows something to be correct according to the evidence which has been subjected to all manner of verification to make sure it has not fooled anyone and that it is rational and logical and reasonable then one can go on to believe it.

Also there is another avenue of Reason which is logical and rational. This is called Probability combined with Practicality as well as reason and logic and rationality.

One can believe something is most likely true for all practical and realistic purposes within reason and logic and rationality.
Example... one can believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow or that a ball tossed up in the air will come back down or that it is safe to go for a walk because an asteroid is not going to come down and hit one on the head.

The other side of the coin (get it) of this is that I am also not going to give up my job because I bought a lottery ticket and I am sure Tuesday I am going to win despite many people having won it. Nor does one jump off a building thinking that one will survive even though some have.

The problem is when people believe without any evidence at all or what they think is evidence despite not having passed any rational and logical standards of evaluation.

An example is believing that putting a rabbit's foot in one's pocket will help one pass an exam or that making a bloody human sacrifice of the son of god will cause the world to become better but only after it becomes worse for an untold number of millennia and the sacrificed god-son comes in a cacophony of trumpets riding upon clouds to snatch away pilots in midflight and drivers on the move and doctors just after they removed someone's kidney and just before replacing it..... unfortunately though no judge or lawyer will ever disappear in mid trial ....but some jurors will.
Click to expand...


Leumas said:
....

It is much like if I would state that I think BS#@$% is 10 meters high.

A logical person would first want to know what a BS#@$% is and then see a sample of it so as to decide whether the statement I made is true or not.

If I do not manage to produce the BS#@$% then any logical person would have to conclude that until I produce a sample of BS#@$% then my statement is meaningless.... or pointless .... or untrue.

But for all PRACTICAL REALITY and intents and purposes of RATIONALITY unless I can show a sample of BS#@$% then I can be assumed to be telling a lie.

In most avenues of life you would be much better off assuming that someone who cannot or would not support his assertion with evidence is most probably trying to hoodwink and bamboozle as has been proven by millennia of human experience.

But of course a person who does not care about PRACTICAL REALITY and wants to argue banal philosophical sophistry can be quite justified in withholding making an opinion one way or the other.

It all depends on what side of REALITY and PRACTICALITY you want to be and how willing you are to be scammed and fleeced.
Click to expand...


In the light of the above stuff, your statement below will only be correct if one had no knowledge AT ALL about the entity being described as god(s).

Navigator said:
The rational position is to have no beliefs about the ideas and existence of god(s).
Click to expand...


If I told you BS#@$% exists.... then you would absolutely be right in not being able to say if my statement is true or false since you have NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL about what BS#@$% is.

But once I start to give a list of characteristics for BS#@$% you start having knowledge about it.

Let me repeat that...... once we start defining BS#@$% it is no longer true that you have no knowledge about it.

Let me repeat this just one more time in case you could not fathom it..... when characteristics and adjectives and claims and definitions and descriptions and assertions start being made about BS#@$% then YOU DEFINITELY HAVE KNOWLEDGE ...... you have knowledge.

Hence your statement above is only valid if you have not managed to acquire any knowledge at all about what gods are and as far as you are concerned the word gods is no more intelligible than BS#@$%.... not even a SINGLE IOTA OF KNOWLEDGE.

Since almost all of humanity today and in the past have very much set down characteristics and adjectives and claims and definitions and descriptions and assertions about their gods it cannot be said that one does not know anything about those gods.

Accordingly, in keeping with reason and logic and rationality we are very much able to evaluate those claims and analyze those characteristics using a tried and proven effective system of KNOWLEDGE (i.e. science) to see if they are consistent with REALITY and with REASON and with LOGIC and with SCIENCE (i.e. knowledge).

We can also apply that additional thing..... PRACTICAL REALISM.

Nevertheless, you claim to be an atheist....which means that at least in regards to all the known gods of mankind you have decided that all those claims and assertions and explanations and descriptions and writings and theologizing about the gods of ALL HUMANITY are not valid.

As an atheist you have rejected all the "ideas of god(s)" explained and detailed and written down in books.

You have decided that all those are not sufficient knowledge to accept those "ideas of god(s)" as valid.

You even go further and claim that you are in search of further ideas.

Leumas said:
….
You keep asserting that you are an atheist but you're still in search for other "ideas of god(s)" that might be true as opposed to the false "ideas of god(s)" that you assert you are an atheist towards.

Can you for instance explain how you have become an atheist in regards to Jesus or Allah or YHWH?

Have you studied them in depth and did you read their scriptures and have you read books written by apologists for them?

Navigator said:
....
I am not a scholar on these three particular ideas but I do know that the Christian idea was to love one another. Is there any reference to killing others in the Jewish idea? I am reminded of the 10 commandments. Are those from the Jewish book?
I seem to remember that there was a commandment not to kill.
Would it be to presimptious of me to say that I bet there is refferrence to loving one another in the Koran.
....
Click to expand...


How could you by any reasoned logic have arrived at the a-Jesus and a-YHWH and a-Allah "ideas of god" when as evinced by your very own words you know hardly anything about them?

You assert that you are an unbeliever in anything and not even in not believing nor in believing....you believe nothing.

But then we read that you know no more than an inkling about THREE ideas of gods followed by over 5 BILLION PEOPLE and yet you declare yourself as an atheist as far as they are concerned.

How do you know Jesus and/or Allah and/or YHWH are not the "right ideas of gods"? You, by your own admittance have but the slightest knowledge of them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
Not so.

"In relation to god idea(s), there is no way to be able to find supporting evidence for these being actually real,"

Therefore it is irrational to demand evidence for something which cannot by its nature BE evident.

:p
Click to expand...


I doubt very much that you apply the above irrational illogic to your everyday life.

If you did you would not even be able to afford the computer you are posting on since you would have been already fleeced and bamboozled out of everything you ever owned as the most gullible easy mark for even the most incompetent mountebanks and shysters and hucksters around.

So the above irrational illogic is nothing but the most TORTURED SPECIAL PLEADING.
 
Navigator said:
Not so.

"In relation to god idea(s), there is no way to be able to find supporting evidence for these being actually real,"

Therefore it is irrational to demand evidence for something which cannot by its nature BE evident.

:p
Click to expand...

I did not suggest one has to demand evidence. Learn to read or to not create straw men.
 
Leumas said:
This god you describe above will thus be riddled with diseased and fickle and criminal and crazy and degenerate parts, since much of humanity have those adjectives correctly describing their consciousness.

Not much of a god I tell you!
Click to expand...


Oh Leumas! Why the doom and gloom!


Excellent.... you are 90% of the way to making a breakthrough.

The 10% you are missing is something that you seem to be ignoring, I think deliberately, despite many people pointing it out to you many times.

I do not KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow.... I believe it will.

So is that irrational? It is belief without knowing....so why is it not irrational? ... well, at least I hope you do not think it is irrational.

The reason it is not irrational to believe the sun is most likely going to rise tomorrow is that 10% you are missing.... it is called Practical Realism.
Click to expand...

Yes - this has already been discussed and sorted Leumas. (hint: interchangeability and the use of language)

So much so that it doesn't seem practical to repeat the process with you. But this I will say. If you think that one is actually going through processes requiring the same type of belief in relation to the sun rising as in relation to ideas of god(s), your thinking is incorrect.

No doubt one of the reasons the sun was worshiped as a god had to do with the certain reliability of that idea of god.

"The sun will most likely rise tomorrow." <this is not a statement of belief.


In the light of the above stuff, your statement below will only be correct if one had no knowledge AT ALL about the entity being described as god(s).
Click to expand...

The above stuff is incorrect. Once you know something as false or true, you have no need to believe that something as being false or true.

If I told you BS#@$% exists.... then you would absolutely be right in not being able to say if my statement is true or false since you have NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL about what BS#@$% is.
Click to expand...

I would not believe that "BS#@$%" exists or does not exist.

But once I start to give a list of characteristics for BS#@$% you start having knowledge about it.
Click to expand...

Hearsay is not 'knowledge.'

Let me repeat that...... once we start defining BS#@$% it is no longer true that you have no knowledge about it.
Click to expand...

I have information which could be true or false. What I call 'knowledge' would have to do with more than just hearsay.

Let me repeat this just one more time in case you could not fathom it..... when characteristics and adjectives and claims and definitions and descriptions and assertions start being made about BS#@$% then YOU DEFINITELY HAVE KNOWLEDGE ...... you have knowledge.
Click to expand...

Let me just as clearly repeat myself. What you are here calling 'knowledge' is hearsay. (btw - why are you yelling?)



Hence your statement above is only valid if you have not managed to acquire any knowledge at all about what gods are and as far as you are concerned the word gods is no more intelligible than BS#@$%.... not even a SINGLE IOTA OF KNOWLEDGE.
Click to expand...

Nope. As far as I am concerned, the word 'god(s)' is open to vast interpretation.

Since almost all of humanity today and in the past have very much set down characteristics and adjectives and claims and definitions and descriptions and assertions about their gods it cannot be said that one does not know anything about those gods.
Click to expand...

Hearsay. It is just hearsay. Stories and myths and legends mostly to entertain but more importantly to comfort and sustain the parent-less child which is human consciousness.

Accordingly, in keeping with reason and logic and rationality we are very much able to evaluate those claims and analyze those characteristics using a tried and proven effective system of KNOWLEDGE (i.e. science) to see if they are consistent with REALITY and with REASON and with LOGIC and with SCIENCE (i.e. knowledge).
Click to expand...

Blowing thine own trumpets. What of this? Science is for all things physical and able to be examined.
Reason and Logic cannot be applied by scientific method in relation to the ideas of god(s).
Science does not give you answers to such questions. You simply decided that you could go ahead and believe god(s) don't exist just because science isn't able to show you otherwise.

Woopty do. :hypnotize

We can also apply that additional thing..... PRACTICAL REALISM.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. You want all ideas of god(s) to be banished from human consciousness. That is very impractical. Seriously - it will make no difference to the way things are done in this crazy world. There is nothing practical about reality or rational about the existence of human consciousness within this universe.

Nevertheless, you claim to be an atheist....
Click to expand...

...and you behave as an antithesist...

...which means that at least in regards to all the known gods of mankind you have decided that all those claims and assertions and explanations and descriptions and writings and theologizing about the gods of ALL HUMANITY are not valid.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. I have quite clearly claimed that all such things are valid in relation to human consciousness. Understandable they are. All part of the process of the evolution of human consciousness in an illogical universe.

As an atheist you have rejected all the "ideas of god(s)" explained and detailed and written down in books.
Click to expand...

As an atheist I accept the existence of the ideas of god(s) and understand these to be what they are. There is no compulsion to believe in any of them any more than there is compulsion to not believe.
There is no compulsion to get my knickers in a twist over theism.

You have decided that all those are not sufficient knowledge to accept those "ideas of god(s)" as valid.
Click to expand...

They are stories. That is how I know them. Rumors of what god(s) are. What of it?

You even go further and claim that you are in search of further ideas.
Click to expand...

Sure. What exactly is a 'god'?

We understand the sun will rise tomorrow on account of science and mathematics. Knowledge.
No need for faith and belief. If for some reason the sun won't rise tomorrow, we would already know exactly why that would be the case.
 
Therefore it is irrational to demand evidence for something which cannot by its nature BE evident.

Leumas said:
I doubt very much that you apply the above irrational illogic to your everyday life.

If you did you would not even be able to afford the computer you are posting on since you would have been already fleeced and bamboozled out of everything you ever owned as the most gullible easy mark for even the most incompetent mountebanks and shysters and hucksters around.

So the above irrational illogic is nothing but the most TORTURED SPECIAL PLEADING.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.

What did I have to believe in order to have this computer? What evidence did I require which was not able to be produced?
 
Daylightstar said:
I did not suggest one has to demand evidence. Learn to read or to not create straw men.
Click to expand...

What were you suggesting then? That one asks nicely for the evidence? That one says 'pretty please'? That if there really was a 'god' then the stars might spell out your name?

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom