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

Navigator said:

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?

Click to expand...

Spot the difference and the non sequitur.

Navigator said:

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.

Click to expand...

Navigator said:

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

Click to expand...

See here:

Daylightstar said:

Spot the ... non sequitur.

Click to expand...

Navigator said:

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



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?

Click to expand...

Apparently, Leumas does not think you apply irrational illogic to your everyday life, like witha computer.
You however evidently do apply irrational illogic to your many irrational beliefs of which not for one you are able to produce any evidence whatsoever.
Irrational illogic is not rational, it's rationalizing.

I said: (in reply to this post)

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

To which you replied.

"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."

That is precisely why I replied by repeating myself (from the same post you commented on):

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

If there is no way to provide supporting evidence then how is it rational to point out the lack of evidence?

You didn't suggest evidence be demanded. So what?

Have you ever demanded evidence for something which obviously cannot be given?

If so, then that is irrational.

Are you willing to stop at knowing that evidence cannot be provided?

No you are not. You insist on believing that god(s) do not exist because there is no evidence for them existing.

That belief is irrational, since no evidence CAN be provided which proves god(s) exist.

The most rational position in relation to the ideas of god(s) is to neither believe god(s) exist or believe god(s) don't exist.

So tell me this. Is the lack of evidence the reason why you choose to believe god(s) don't exist, or is it that any evidence you might demand is not forthcoming, the reason why you choose to believe god(s) don't exist?

Either way you are not being rational.

Navigator said:

I said: (in reply to this post)

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

To which you replied.

"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."

That is precisely why I replied by repeating myself (from the same post you commented on):

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

If there is no way to provide supporting evidence then how is it rational to point out the lack of evidence?

You didn't suggest evidence be demanded. So what?

Have you ever demanded evidence for something which obviously cannot be given?

If so, then that is irrational.

Are you willing to stop at knowing that evidence cannot be provided?

No you are not. You insist on believing that god(s) do not exist because there is no evidence for them existing.

That belief is irrational, since no evidence CAN be provided which proves god(s) exist.

The most rational position in relation to the ideas of god(s) is to neither believe god(s) exist or believe god(s) don't exist.

So tell me this. Is the lack of evidence the reason why you choose to believe god(s) don't exist, or is it that any evidence you might demand is not forthcoming, the reason why you choose to believe god(s) don't exist?

Either way you are not being rational.

Click to expand...

I refer you back to this post and this post. You now respond with rationalizing, as mentioned in this post.
Thanks for the demonstration of that fact though

Daylightstar said:

I refer you back to this post and this post. You now respond with rationalizing, as mentioned in this post.
Thanks for the demonstration of that fact though

Click to expand...

DLH said:

What I don't understand in the context of the typical atheist / theist discussion / debate, is, why the word god(s) is so limited, for example, to the application of either metaphorical or supernatural.

Click to expand...

Most likely this has more to do with the limitations of both sides.

The Bible, for example, refers to a god as anything or anyone attributed a might greater than that of the one attributing it or veneration. Similar to the title Lord, which usually denotes authority having been granted.

Click to expand...

Sure. But hey, why limit it to what the bible says?

The Bible mentions Moses, Jesus, the Judges of Israel and Tammuz, the Sumerian king deified posthumously in the Sumerian custom as being gods. All historical and human figures.

Click to expand...

Yes. When it comes to individual human beings, I don't think anyone can qualify. Perhaps in relation to the collective past present and future humanity, the title 'god' might be more appropriate. Especially since there doesn't seem to be any other evidence of god(s) nearby.

It uses the same variations of the word God in application to men, angels, idols, and to Jehovah himself.

Click to expand...

Just a label of sorts then? Jehovah 'god'. Archangel 'god' Anu 'god' Jesus 'god'.

Not to mention that in modern English there are similar, even perhaps more mundane examples of the word god being used.

Click to expand...

Like for Movie, Rock, and Sports stars and such?

Navigator said:

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

Click to expand...

When are you going to get tired of building up Straw Men and Scarecrows... will your stockpiles of claptrap ever run out?

I will however tell you what I am anti.... I am anti people who after all their codswallop has been exposed for the onanism it is and they have utterly failed to substantiate their claptrap, they move on to the next step in their sophistic hoodwinking stratagems in order to draw attention away from their exposed arrant inability to reason rationally or logically by attempting to degenerate the argument into tomfoolery using all sorts of machinations and ploys and underhanded sophistry and linguistic chicanery and poisoning the well and fabricating scarecrows and scaremongering with slippery slopes and so on and so forth from a well stocked stockpile of illogical fallacies and linguistic legerdemain and casuistic conjuring.

Intentionally lying and using any ploys and subterfuge for the sake of Jesus is an OLD custom.

Jesus (a.k.a. YHWH) started it

• 2 Chronicles 18:22: Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets
• Ezekiel 14:9: And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet
• Ezekiel 20:25-26: Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I [am] the LORD.

Paul continued with it

• 1 Corinthians 9:20-23:To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

Eusebius, Emperor Constantine's bishop, was one of the earliest active advocates of it

• How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.

And Martin Luther the founder of Protestantism sanctified it

• What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

Martin Luther also explained why reason is not something most theists value

• Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God

And the Bible fully supports him

• 1 Corinthians 1:19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
• 1 Corinthians 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
• 1 Corinthians 1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

The latest in the LYING FOR JESUS stratagems is a new phenomenon I have started noticing recently which I think goes along with the other not so new phenomenon of theistic usurpation of science.

The ID stratagem is to usurp science (now that the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be shoved back in their again) by pretending to be scientists but then start telling people that as scientists they disagree with those other atheist scientists who are blinded and biased by their atheism. They as reasonable and unbiased by atheism and as scientists they can attest to how science only proves God the Designer.

Along the same lines, I think there is an attempt at usurping atheism too. A fifth column if you will.

It is a new twist on the old ruse of pretending to be a reformed atheist who became one out of desire for debauchery or out of anger at god or the church and who has been saved from the dire consequence of such errors and now sees the light. Of course that is in addition to the other ruse of claiming that some famous atheists eventually repented on their deathbed.

I have noticed a proliferation on the internet and in the media in general of people claiming to be atheists who make sure to proclaim loudly and repeatedly their atheism and may even point out problems in religion but their objections to religion seems to be more often aimed at those other than the one from which they allegedly became atheists.

I usually start suspecting something skewwhiff when those "atheists" claim that they became atheists as a result of some abuse or mishap or that it was just a lucky coincidence and then tell a story about how they were really hateful atheists but that now they have mellowed down and have seen the light of how it is better to be a more reasonable and accommodative atheist.

They then go on to point out how affronted they are by those "offensive callas militant nasty unreasonable fundamentalist atheists" like Richard Dawkins et al whom they consider to be just as extremists and unreasonable as the extremist and unreasonable theists.

They then go on, in the spirit of accommodation, to defend theism but somehow their defense seems to be more often more vehement for the religion they claim to have become atheists from.

However, an indicative sign of something wonky going on is when they slip and state that atheism is as much of a belief system as theism and therefore why not just be more understanding and nice about our beliefs. Yes, they still say "our" to make sure to emphasize how they are atheists too making sure no one fails to notice the false flag they are flying.

Thus insidiously fabricating an image that moderate nice atheists understand that atheism is an emotionally irrational state based as much on faith as any religion and only those nasty "fundamentalist atheists" are the militant ones who want to fight and hate religions despite not having any real proofs for their faith in atheism.

Navigator said:

...
If there is no way to provide supporting evidence then how is it rational to point out the lack of evidence?
....

Click to expand...

How do you know that.... you yourself admit to not having looked at any evidence for the THREE religions followed by over 5 Billion people.

Christians, Jews and Muslims would tell you that THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, all you need to do is look at it and read it and understand it.

So why are you refusing to look at the evidence that over 5 Billion people are trying to give you?

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...

Why do you refuse to look at the evidence for YHWH a.k.a. Jesus a.k.a. Allah.

What is it that made you decide that YHWH is not a real god?

You have not looked at any evidence for or against YHWH according to your very own words.

What do you call people who refuse to look at evidence and make up their minds without looking at evidence?
How do you know without considering any evidence that Jesus is not the "right ideas of gods"? You, by your own admittance have not bothered to look at the evidence presented for him..... how can you reject Jesus without having considered ALL THAT EVIDENCE for him?

Navigator said:

....
To believe without knowing is irrational.
....

Click to expand...

I tried adopting Navigator's system, but could not get to sleep because I found that I could also not believe that there are no vampires and mothmen and chupacabras. I found the whole thing wearying so I reverted to the presumption that things for which no evidence exists can be presumed not to exist. I shudder with the realization that it is irrational, but it is more restful.

bruto said:

I tried adopting Navigator's system, but could not get to sleep because I found that I could also not believe that there are no vampires and mothmen and chupacabras. I found the whole thing wearying so I reverted to the presumption that things for which no evidence exists can be presumed not to exist. I shudder with the realization that it is irrational, but it is more restful.

Click to expand...

One of the most effective barriers to learning is ignorance of one's ignorance.

When people think they are being logical and rational they proceed to construct impervious piles of claptrap all around them that even if any actual proper logic or reason did manage somehow to break though it would be so utterly tainted with all the hogwash it had to penetrate that it is rendered useless anyhow.

Little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge... and what is even more dangerous is dissimulating having knowledge to fool people who have little and/or no knowledge that they have the right knowledge and instruct them in the art of piling up claptrap all around them to impede any other knowledge from penetrating their skulls.

Leumas said:

When are you going to get tired of building up Straw Men and Scarecrows... will your stockpiles of claptrap ever run out?

Click to expand...

When are you going to answer the question? Are you or are you not an antitheist?

I will however tell you what I am anti.... I am anti people who after all their codswallop has been exposed for the onanism it is and they have utterly failed to substantiate their claptrap, they move on to the next step in their sophistic hoodwinking stratagems in order to draw attention away from their exposed arrant inability to reason rationally or logically by attempting to degenerate the argument into tomfoolery using all sorts of machinations and ploys and underhanded sophistry and linguistic chicanery and poisoning the well and fabricating scarecrows and scaremongering with slippery slopes and so on and so forth from a well stocked stockpile of illogical fallacies and linguistic legerdemain and casuistic conjuring.

Intentionally lying and using any ploys and subterfuge for the sake of Jesus is an OLD custom.

Click to expand...

Why are you getting all emotional and venting? It is irrational.

The focus of the thread is on the irrationality of belief. I argued your attempt to say that you were using belief when saying the sun will rise tomorrow. It is not about belief (as I pointed out in my post) so why the rant? Why not the more rational approach of admitting that I do actually have a point?

Jesus (a.k.a. YHWH) started it...

Click to expand...

and why this copy and paste irrelevant to the thread rubbish?

The ID stratagem is to usurp science (now that the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be shoved back in their again) by pretending to be scientists but then start telling people that as scientists they disagree with those other atheist scientists who are blinded and biased by their atheism. They as reasonable and unbiased by atheism and as scientists they can attest to how science only proves God the Designer.

Click to expand...

Who cares? Not I. Why? Because it doesn't matter. I am an atheist, not an antitheist and ranting about what the so'called 'usurpers' are up to is just more evidence of why belief is irrational, regardless of what you or the opposition to you believe.

Along the same lines, I think there is an attempt at usurping atheism too. A fifth column if you will.

Click to expand...

Why is this even important? It is obviously important to you and the vehemence in which you deliver is not at all unlike any fundy christian delivering their version of 'truth' whatever it is they believe.

It is a new twist on the old ruse of pretending to be a reformed atheist who became one out of desire for debauchery or out of anger at god or the church and who has been saved from the dire consequence of such errors and now sees the light. Of course that is in addition to the other ruse of claiming that some famous atheists eventually repented on their deathbed.

Click to expand...

When it comes to ideas of god(s) from understanding both sides of the argument and agreeing with neither, god(s) are easy enough to understand. I have explained that adequately enough anyway.

You have an obvious gripe about it and this forum is your place where you can vent unrestricted, but I don't have to agree with your irrationality or think it good reason to allow you to get on your pedestal and preach your particular irrationality.

Address my arguments instead of ranting off on your own spin! What you are doing is proving that I am indeed correct. ALL belief is irrational.

I have noticed a proliferation on the internet and in the media in general of people claiming to be atheists who make sure to proclaim loudly and repeatedly their atheism and may even point out problems in religion but their objections to religion seems to be more often aimed at those other than the one from which they allegedly became atheists.

Click to expand...

Whatever. Have you thought about maybe creating a thread in which to vent these observations?

I mean, what you said above is clear indication that beliefs are irrational and I think at least you are in your own way saying this is the case in the above...but hey...you have beliefs too...

I usually start suspecting something skewwhiff when those "atheists" claim that they became atheists as a result of some abuse or mishap or that it was just a lucky coincidence and then tell a story about how they were really hateful atheists but that now they have mellowed down and have seen the light of how it is better to be a more reasonable and accommodative atheist.

Click to expand...

Rather than an all out antitheist. I get it really I do, but what is the point? What do either side of the rumble have to offer the world which is any different from what the world already has?

They then go on to point out how affronted they are by those "offensive callas militant nasty unreasonable fundamentalist atheists" like Richard Dawkins et al whom they consider to be just as extremists and unreasonable as the extremist and unreasonable theists.

They then go on, in the spirit of accommodation, to defend theism but somehow their defense seems to be more often more vehement for the religion they claim to have become atheists from.

However, an indicative sign of something wonky going on is when they slip and state that atheism is as much of a belief system as theism and therefore why not just be more understanding and nice about our beliefs. Yes, they still say "our" to make sure to emphasize how they are atheists too making sure no one fails to notice the false flag they are flying.

Click to expand...

You have it wrong. Some atheists actually see no logic in believing anything for or against the existence of god(s).

You seem to think that this is not allowable. Hey, you appear to be diligently antitheist and yet are hedging around actually just coming on out and saying so. I asked, you just rant.
Some might say 'Hey Navigator. Isn't it obvious that Leumas is more than just an atheist? He is a special breed of atheist called 'antitheist'. Why do you ask the obvious?'

Well because I don't like to assume, so I ask. But also I ask because I am interested in how the persona answers.

Thus insidiously fabricating an image that moderate nice atheists understand that atheism is an emotionally irrational state based as much on faith as any religion and only those nasty "fundamentalist atheists" are the militant ones who want to fight and hate religions despite not having any real proofs for their faith in atheism.

Click to expand...

Well whatever floats your boat Leumas, but as I say (and as this thread points out) beliefs are irrational. You think your rant is rational, but it is way far from rationality. People are not saying what your above quote speaks about just because they have nothing better to say. They are saying it because they are observing it and because it needs to be pointed out AND stood up to. Not all atheists are militant or want to be confused with militant so-called atheists such as yourself. Such expressions are old world and need to be understood in that light. Your expression is not from atheism but from antitheism. It sucks, just like fundy christian expression sucks.

Leumas said:

What is it that made you decide that YHWH is not a real god?

Click to expand...

On the contrary. My idea of a god is that it is all earth consciousness. YHWH et al are creations of that consciousness which evolved with that consciousness as far as those ideas could evolve.

I cannot say that earth consciousness is a 'real god' but in relation to that - I can say at least that it is real, and continues unabated towards wherever it is going.

I would classify it as a 'god' but others might disagree, and besides which I don't think it ultimately matters anymore to that consciousness weather it is seen to be a god or not.

It is what it is and will continue to do what it does using whatever it is able to in order to achieve whatever it wants to.

Navigator said:

Click to expand...

That's indeed what I said.

Navigator said:

On the contrary. My idea of a god is that it is all earth consciousness. YHWH et al are creations of that consciousness which evolved with that consciousness as far as those ideas could evolve.

I cannot say that earth consciousness is a 'real god' but in relation to that - I can say at least that it is real, and continues unabated towards wherever it is going.

I would classify it as a 'god' but others might disagree, and besides which I don't think it ultimately matters anymore to that consciousness weather it is seen to be a god or not.

It is what it is and will continue to do what it does using whatever it is able to in order to achieve whatever it wants to.

Click to expand...

Outside this thread you have claimed to be consciousness. Are you thus claiming that you are a god?

Navigator said:

[snip a lot of self-refuting linguistic chicanery]

Click to expand...

Thanks Navigator for posting the above.... I really appreciate your efforts in writing down in your very own words for everyone to clearly read your own self-refutation.... I rest my case.

Navigator said:

Leumas said:

What is it that made you decide that YHWH is not a real god?

Click to expand...

On the contrary. My idea of a god is that it is all earth consciousness. YHWH et al are creations of that consciousness which evolved with that consciousness as far as those ideas could evolve.

.....

Click to expand...

BINGO!

Well done.... you have just admitted that you think that YHWH is a real god.... and more astoundingly by extension of your illogic EVERY GOD EVER INVENTED by humans is also a real god.

To add more astounding illogic... you have even invented your very own fledgling ragtag god in the making.

So do you still insist you are an atheist?

ETA: Nosferatu the vampire is by your above illogic a god too and so is Aslan and Harry Potter and even Gollum and Bilbo Baggins.

Daylightstar said:

Outside this thread you have claimed to be consciousness. Are you thus claiming that you are a god?

Click to expand...

Not just him but every human that ever existed and will exist.

But not just that....what he effectively said is that ALL claimed gods are real Gods since they are the product of his nascent fledgling ragtag god riddled with all sorts of repugnant and diseased body parts since it is made up of all those human consciousness which also apparently includes psychopaths and rapists and mass murderers and serial killers and liars and child raping theologians and Banksters and so on and so forth.

It is the illogical fallacy of Proving too much.

What he also of course fails to consider is that the human race has only existed for less than 100K years or 5M years if you want to go as far back as hominins.

So if human consciousness is a god in the making then the "illogical universe" (his words) created his ragtag god out of "irrational consciousness" (his words).... what a god!!!

Moreover, he still insists he is an atheist.... that is like me claiming to be a king and insisting that anyone who tries to show me how wrong I am is a vile hater of humanity.

Navigator said:

On the contrary. My idea of a god is that it is all earth consciousness. YHWH et al are creations of that consciousness which evolved with that consciousness as far as those ideas could evolve.

I cannot say that earth consciousness is a 'real god' but in relation to that - I can say at least that it is real, and continues unabated towards wherever it is going.

I would classify it as a 'god' but others might disagree, and besides which I don't think it ultimately matters anymore to that consciousness weather it is seen to be a god or not.

It is what it is and will continue to do what it does using whatever it is able to in order to achieve whatever it wants to.

Click to expand...

That's quite an admission for someone who claims to have no beliefs. You believe that earth consciousness is real. I don't. I suppose you'll say that you don't believe earth consciousness is real, you know it is. But the evidence for earth consciousness is the same as what theists claim as evidence for their gods--subjective, personal belief--and they too claim they know god is real based on that evidence. You do have beliefs, in this case a belief in something that's unusual and supernatural.

Leumas said:

Thanks Navigator for posting the above.... I really appreciate your efforts in writing down in your very own words for everyone to clearly read your own self-refutation.... I rest my case.

Click to expand...

What case is that you are resting Leumas?