Ok, you just committed the "no true theist" fallacy and your very own "no true Christian" fallacy. Are Catholics theists? How about Muslims? Or a Hindu?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism doesn't exist?:)
- Thread starter Rabbi Daniel
- Start date
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Fact of life as science AI taught...the angels of God, speaking with human voices, telling anti stories to the human bio life, destroyer of self....and removal of natural bio life before it was meant to die.
Says........only vision of a reaction in Earth existed first.....no male human then, no male with a machine reaction then...the state science.
Male researches the vision as the highest historic form of self presence, human as a God statement....supported by natural God, natural Mass of God, natural heavenly mass.
Converted all bodies including self.
Machine then caused the manifestation of imaged feed back as the presence of angels...that speak back voices, only owned by a human who speaks and communicated back images by vision...for a male encoded his own life attack in that reaction.
And told the story of why he did it...and what purpose it owned.....self removal as a wanted, self reasoning, self motivated original male choice.....because he knew where he had come from....the body eternal and wanted to go back.
Says........only vision of a reaction in Earth existed first.....no male human then, no male with a machine reaction then...the state science.
Male researches the vision as the highest historic form of self presence, human as a God statement....supported by natural God, natural Mass of God, natural heavenly mass.
Converted all bodies including self.
Machine then caused the manifestation of imaged feed back as the presence of angels...that speak back voices, only owned by a human who speaks and communicated back images by vision...for a male encoded his own life attack in that reaction.
And told the story of why he did it...and what purpose it owned.....self removal as a wanted, self reasoning, self motivated original male choice.....because he knew where he had come from....the body eternal and wanted to go back.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Thanks. That makes your inability to understand my position understandable to me. And maybe, possible for me to explain my position to you.
I was in a similar position to you. I had an image of god based on what theists had told me about their image and based on their scripture. And often in discussion, when I had said "god is X" or "god did Y" the answer was: "But that is not the god I believe in.". I had, unwittingly, stawmaned their position.
So I tried to steelman the theists position by trying to find those properties all their images of god had in common. And guess what, I came up with an empty set. My logical response was that I stopped having an image of god. I had to force myself because every image I would have, would be a straw man for at least some theists.
You are half way on that road. You have admitted that you have a mental image. You just have to learn that that image is wrong (in that it is not consensus among theists). Every image you could have is wrong. Just get rid of them. "The Dao that can be named is not the Dao." - Lao Tse
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You don't make any sense to me.
When pointing out internal contradictions concerning the morals of a character in a story, it's pretty normal to talk about that character and the actions attributed to that character to point out that its behaviour isn't consistent with what is being said about him.
Obviously it were humans that invented the rules of slavery and who engaged in the practice.
But in the story, the supposed "benevolent" god with "perfect morals" is condoning those rules.
So when talking about the credibility of the story and its internal consistency, it's perectly fine to talk about how a benevolent deity with perfect morals, wouldn't be condoning a reprehensible practice such as slavery.
In fact, the events in question need not even have happened either.
Like how this deity is said to have drowned and killed every living thing bar a handfull on some boat. That never happened. But it's still perfectly fine to point out how a benevolent deity with perfect morals, wouldn't engage in such a genocide and infanticide.
We can evaluate the morals of Darth Vader and the Jedi in the exact same way.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You don't "know" any of that.
You assume all that to be the case, and your assumptions seem to be consistent with your, and other people's, experience with reality.
So you run with it. But you don't know that (in terms of absolute certainty).
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
It seems like the height of arrogance to assume that there is anything we can know with 100% certainty. You're basically saying that there is absolutely no possibility that you could ever be mistaken or misled over any of these things. Are you really that arrogant?
Or like a man enters the world, looks at the universe and is quite positive that it was created by a god but there might be a very tiny doubt that it might be natural processes with did that.
It seems pretty straightforward to me as well, since all of those that you named are, by definition, theists.
Atheism and Anti-Theism: What's the Difference?
- It's worth noting here that, however, unlikely it may be in practice, it's possible in theory for a theist to be an anti-theist. This may sound bizarre at first, but remember that some people have argued in favor of promoting false beliefs if they are socially useful. Religious theism itself has been just such a belief, with some people arguing that because religious theism promotes morality and order it should be encouraged regardless whether it is true or not. Utility is placed above truth-value. -
Do you really?
How did you manage to establish that you aren't a brain in a vat being fed the stimuli of a false reality?
If you've figured out this inscrutable problem, don't keep it to yourself. Tye philosophy community has been waiting for this.
Rabbi Daniel
Member
Are you trying to say that I cannot know that 1+1=2 One apple and another apple makes 2 apples.
If we are arguing with basic logic, axioms, what's the point of arguing? Why learning mathematics, if at the end one will say: maybe not . Maybe one plus one equal equal 7 or equal dffjrjtjgjjfjfj
I am a human being and I think with my brain a human brain, and I know, without arrogance, but with simple logic that I am writing right now on my computer. And let's leave science fiction to Hollywood.
If we are arguing with basic logic, axioms, what's the point of arguing? Why learning mathematics, if at the end one will say: maybe not . Maybe one plus one equal equal 7 or equal dffjrjtjgjjfjfj
I am a human being and I think with my brain a human brain, and I know, without arrogance, but with simple logic that I am writing right now on my computer. And let's leave science fiction to Hollywood.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
We’re not arguing basic logic axioms though. “I am typing at my computer” or “My God exists” (or indeed “No gods exist”) are not basic logical axioms. They are complex and multi-faceted assertions.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
When have I indicated that I can't "deal with it?" This is just you soap-boxing at this point. We're apparently both replying to things that the other isn't saying - so let's just stop. Please note, however, that I am the one who is at least willing to admit it.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Proof positive that YOU DON'T REALLY READ. I explained to you exactly why it is NOT a "No True Scotsman" assessment of the situation - so now you are just demonstrably being dense.
A person who is "mad at God" (especially if they state as much) is tacitly (meaning that they are doing so in the subtext, not necessarily meaning to) admitting to God's existence. As soon as a person admits to God's existence, or displays that they believe THEY ARE NO LONGER ATHEIST. This is by DEFINITION of the word. YOU AREN'T AN ATHEIST IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD. Therefore, in being "mad at God" you can't be an atheist... because God would need to exist for there to be a target for your anger.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND? THIS IS A YES OR NO QUESTION AT THIS POINT.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If God existed as a male defines it, by his genetics, then why does sperm get changed and damaged and the same for a female ovary?
It would never alter or be changed from its Nature if your biblical God were what is stated.
When a male as a scientist says to self, I can look back into the past and see where I got created.
I would ask him, how could you infer that comment was real.
The answer because it was recorded as a memory and a vision.
And the recording mechanism is the state that allows recording and vision to exist.
As just recording and vision.
Males then claim and so when I die I will remain, as a recording and a vision.
Now if a male says that once I owned a higher spiritual self.
You would ask a simple question, so where did this spirit come from.
He would say eternal the same body that allows the bodies of God o O mass to exist as the same exact body yet own variations to its formed process.
And as all bodies own a history of being destroyed and consumed and then stopped, then it cannot be radiation.
So then you say to that male, so you say that you will be with God when you personally die?
As a human...and a bio life body with 2 spirits....a spirit body of bone, and a bio life.
And when the spirit of water dies, the bio self, then the bones, like stone and God Earth is left....so is that when you are "with God" when you die as a logical answer.
So then you would ask that male, okay how did you get bones inside of a living bio form?
And he would tell you, I tried to be as God, for I invented the artificial condition named as science and brought in an extra amount of mass of radiation that was not natural to natural history.
The story of God....O mass/ the reasoning of O numbers to remove O mass...where the power is held.
Male says...the power is not held in space...it is not contained.
So looks out and says, yes I can see where it gets contained O.
Where he says he withdraws the powers for resources from, a contained body to access and control the containment and then its release.
So then you would ask the male, so how does God, the stone create electricity.
The real answer, it does not.....destroyed mass and converted mass irradiated bodies of God create electricity, yet it is also in their destruction.
Says it all.....God is not any resource.
It would never alter or be changed from its Nature if your biblical God were what is stated.
When a male as a scientist says to self, I can look back into the past and see where I got created.
I would ask him, how could you infer that comment was real.
The answer because it was recorded as a memory and a vision.
And the recording mechanism is the state that allows recording and vision to exist.
As just recording and vision.
Males then claim and so when I die I will remain, as a recording and a vision.
Now if a male says that once I owned a higher spiritual self.
You would ask a simple question, so where did this spirit come from.
He would say eternal the same body that allows the bodies of God o O mass to exist as the same exact body yet own variations to its formed process.
And as all bodies own a history of being destroyed and consumed and then stopped, then it cannot be radiation.
So then you say to that male, so you say that you will be with God when you personally die?
As a human...and a bio life body with 2 spirits....a spirit body of bone, and a bio life.
And when the spirit of water dies, the bio self, then the bones, like stone and God Earth is left....so is that when you are "with God" when you die as a logical answer.
So then you would ask that male, okay how did you get bones inside of a living bio form?
And he would tell you, I tried to be as God, for I invented the artificial condition named as science and brought in an extra amount of mass of radiation that was not natural to natural history.
The story of God....O mass/ the reasoning of O numbers to remove O mass...where the power is held.
Male says...the power is not held in space...it is not contained.
So looks out and says, yes I can see where it gets contained O.
Where he says he withdraws the powers for resources from, a contained body to access and control the containment and then its release.
So then you would ask the male, so how does God, the stone create electricity.
The real answer, it does not.....destroyed mass and converted mass irradiated bodies of God create electricity, yet it is also in their destruction.
Says it all.....God is not any resource.
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning here. Are you saying any question of science is a question about God? From a certain perspective that could be argued, as science began in pursuit of finding how God created the world in an attempt to both see and better understand God. But from the discipline's perspective itself, it's about the thing being studied itself, and not worrying about theological implications (eg. Galileo). That's why science does not make proclamations about God. Those are theological in nature, and that's not what science is about.
If however, any scientist in question were to then say, "Based upon the data I have seen, it says to me that God couldn't have created this, therefore God cannot exist", that is theological. It is a conclusion that his data does not match with a theological description of God he has been exposed to. That's not scientific, it's a theological description of God being measured up against hard data about the natural world. At best, it indicates the theology does not match the data very well.
I think of it in terms like a Creationist who denies science because it doesn't match how they read the book of Genesis as a literal, scientific description. What is questionable is not the science, but their theology. To conclude science disproves God, is simply the flipside of that same category error. Both are doing the same mistake. Neither seem to recognize that the theology itself is not some fixed thing.
Neither seem to stop and say, "Maybe how I've thought about God needs modification". Both seem married to their ideas about God, which of course come directly from the theological perspective of traditional Christianity. If say a third party were to offer a different perspective of God theologically, both say, "That's not God". And that proves the point. It is a specific, narrow theological perspective behind each side's denial of the other.
It's not an either/or choice. I see it as a both/and choice. But in order for it to be that, one has to not be married to their ideas, be those about the natural world, or about theology.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If a male says to his self, to own God as a power of everything, rationally as a scientist he would have to say therefore I need to own what was before God, to achieve God.
Which would be his self conscious realization, therefore God is not the Creator.
When a male said in the beginning God was on the face...then God had a face and was in space, the great deep and with water.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
A male is telling the stories of science as a male.
A male says I am consciousness living inside of an atmosphere telling those stories.
I am within the formless Earth with its void...the atmosphere...for the gas of stone is the heavenly gases, Earth not as stone.
Gases from out of the stone of God, stone...which owned no beginning and no end.
By determined science reasoning. I can only talk about science as a male and a human whilst standing on the stone. My machine comes out of the mass of that stone, the planet.....God he says.
STone was not any beginning, for stone did not begin the Universal creation, correct reasoning.
STone did not end, it was formed in cold empty space by pressure and cooling.
Not a reaction, God is not science.
Male with a theory, scientist....themes about God the planet history and wants to remove the mass O of God by a machine.
Knowingly can only achieve that condition by attacking/converting mass by transformation....conversion.
Science never knew God, science knew Satan....how to try to force God to end as Satan.....a simple scientific review of science as a history....which is the true study of scientists today...studying scientific concepts about fusion.
Which would be his self conscious realization, therefore God is not the Creator.
When a male said in the beginning God was on the face...then God had a face and was in space, the great deep and with water.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.
A male is telling the stories of science as a male.
A male says I am consciousness living inside of an atmosphere telling those stories.
I am within the formless Earth with its void...the atmosphere...for the gas of stone is the heavenly gases, Earth not as stone.
Gases from out of the stone of God, stone...which owned no beginning and no end.
By determined science reasoning. I can only talk about science as a male and a human whilst standing on the stone. My machine comes out of the mass of that stone, the planet.....God he says.
STone was not any beginning, for stone did not begin the Universal creation, correct reasoning.
STone did not end, it was formed in cold empty space by pressure and cooling.
Not a reaction, God is not science.
Male with a theory, scientist....themes about God the planet history and wants to remove the mass O of God by a machine.
Knowingly can only achieve that condition by attacking/converting mass by transformation....conversion.
Science never knew God, science knew Satan....how to try to force God to end as Satan.....a simple scientific review of science as a history....which is the true study of scientists today...studying scientific concepts about fusion.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's a logical axiom. While it represents reality (or things in reality, or at least it can...), it is not reality.
That's not what is being said or argued.
Or perhaps a human body is just your "avatar" and really you are like a Roswell Grey alien in a vat, hooked up to some matrix style machine.
Sure, it seems ridiculously unlikely - so much so that we pretty much dismiss it as an option at face value, and rightfully so - but you can NOT rule it out.
And because you can't rule it out, you also can't be absolutely certain it's false.
The only thing you know for certain concerning that, is that you believe that to be the case.
You're certain that you believe it to be the case. But you can't be certain that it actually is the case.
This has nothing to do with science fiction and everything with reason and rationality.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Well, you've certainly demonstrated again (and witness the many other posts from skeptic friends here) that you harbor animosity to God's people, which implies animosity toward our God.
I'm asking you how you know.
I also think that you should realize that when an atheist says something like "I'm not perfectly sure that God doesn't exist," it's often the case that they have problems like this in mind.
If you don't care about epistemology, that's your own prerogative, but if you're going to confront people and throw shade at their beliefs, you should understand what those beliefs are.
The "brain in a vat" problem is an admittedly silly thought experiment, but it's illustrative of larger questions about how we might know things and what the basis should be for certainty of our beliefs. Many atheists have thought more about epistemology than you apparently have, so they recognize the limitations on human knowledge that you fail to acknowledge.
So chalk at least some of the "uncertainty" on the part of atheists to their concerns about knowledge generally. Don't assume that they're acknowledging merit in your god-claims.
(And FYI: when you reply to a post, it's polite to quote the post you're replying to. That way, people will know who you're addressing)
Handy tip: you are not God.
Of course i do, they tried to kill my children.
They drove me from the church i loved.
Did their god belief try to kill my children? Did their god belief mock my disability? Sure the bible has him as a genocidal maniac who condones rape, slavery and theft but in real life was it their god belief Or was it Christians?
But feel free to twist the implication it in whatever way massages your ego, you usually do