Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[leroy]

No, it's the logical conclusion drawn from your assertions about the lack of qualities this thing supposedly doesn't possess.

It's the reason you can't demonstrate the existence of the god you're claiming. You're not describing it's qualities. Rather, you're describing it's lack of qualities. Which isn't a description of the thing at all. It's just a list of things it doesn't have. And what you've described is something that we have no knowledge or evidence that would demonstrate it could even exist at all. Existence, as far as all existing evidence indicates, is temporal.



This is a response to YOUR assertion.

That is not a proper way of supporting such a radical claim

as far as all existing evidence indicates, is temporal.

And as far as all existing evidence goes, humans come from humans…………………..wow i just refuted the theory of evolution

 

[GoodAttention]

No, I don't know God if God is outside the universe. I have a defintion I attach to the word "God", but that is not God.

The definition of a word is not the referent of a word.

So yours is in effect an unknowable God because what you “know” is disproportionate to what you do not know.

 

[leroy]

You're the one claiming there is evidence, right?
So present the evidence you claim you have.

again If you want evidence for God then explain exactly what you mean by evidence and provide an objective metric that would allow us to test if something qualifies as evidence or not


We both know that you will not answer to this request, because you know that as soon as you provide an objective and useful metric…………. Providing evidence for God would be very easy

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not a proper way of supporting such a radical claim


And as far as all existing evidence goes, humans come from humans…………………..wow i just refuted the theory of evolution

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So yours is in effect an unknowable God because what you “know” is disproportionate to what you do not know.

Can you rephrase that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

again If you want evidence for God then explain exactly what you mean by evidence and provide an objective metric that would allow us to test if something qualifies as evidence or not


We both know that you will not answer to this request, because you know that as soon as you provide an objective and useful metric…………. Providing evidence for God would be very easy

Okay, let's try re-phrasing this.

You are convinced a god exists, right? What convinced you that this god exists? What are the qualities of the god you are convinced exists?

As you say here, this should be easy for you. You're the one who believes there is a god. Why do you believe that?

 

[ratiocinator]

If I appear desperate it is because my question keeps getting met by another question.

I don't recall asking you about it. It's just incoherent nonsense.

The whole idea of a sentence that begins "An atheist believes God is..." is going to be incoherent nonsense, unless it ends with "...non-existent."

The reason you look desperate is that you seem totally unable to simply accept that atheists don't believe that any god(s) exists, and insist in some sort of bizarre and totally pointless phrase, and are now spending ages arguing that it actually means the same thing anyway.

Why?

If you really think they mean the same thing, then why would you bother to argue for your own version? The obvious conclusion is that you don't really think they mean the same at all and are being disingenuous.

 

[GoodAttention]

Can you rephrase that?

Yes I think I got confused also.

You defined God, so this is a knowable God, but you accept this God cannot be realized. This is an agnostic theist view.

 

[ratiocinator]

Ok,. So if there is no evidence for God, then you shouldn’t have any problem in proposing and supporting an alternative for the origin of the universe.

Massive non sequitur.

As I said before, there is nothing wrong with not having an alternative, and still pointing out that you have made no coherent logical or evidence based case for your 'option', so we reject it.

Do you really live in a world in which everybody is forced to have some preferred explanation for everything, no matter how scant the evidence?

If we found no evidence at all about, for example, who murdered somebody, would you then accept that some random bloke found in the vague vicinity of it must be guilty because there's no alternative being offered...? Perhaps you'd accept it was the fairies because nobody was found near the scene of the crime?

This is madness.

 

[GoodAttention]

I don't recall asking you about it. It's just incoherent nonsense.

I posed a question and instead of answering you respond with a question. Of course it will end up in incoherent nonsense.

The whole idea of a sentence that begins "An atheist believes God is..." is going to be incoherent nonsense, unless it ends with "...non-existent."

Ok

The reason you look desperate is that you seem totally unable to simply accept that atheists don't believe that any god(s) exists, and insist in some sort of bizarre and totally pointless phrase, and are now spending ages arguing that it actually means the same thing anyway.

You act as if I’ve taken something from you, are you incapable of ignoring my comments?

Why?

If you really think they mean the same thing, then why would you bother to argue for your own version? The obvious conclusion is that you don't really think they mean the same at all and are being disingenuous.

Not everything is about you and your perceived persecutions.

 

[Pogo]

It does somewhat. I can say a Flying Spaghetti Monster, an entity that can be defined, and therefore knowable, cannot be realized. I can also say it doesn’t exist since I have defined it.

An entity without definition doesn’t exist. How then does an atheist put the theist in atheist?

An atheist can attack the concept itself and say God is unknowable, meaning without definition or undefinable, and can not be realized, meaning evidence for its existence can not be obtained observed.

Language again, a- is just a simple negation logically not theist whatever theist is.
Again the anti confusion which connotes against more than just not.

An atheist can do a lot of things just as a theist can, but declaring things about gods is not in itself atheism,.
Theism is belief in a god however that god is defined. A-theism is lack of belief, irregardless of what one may feel about the concept of a god.

Personally, a god might exist, but I don't think about it except when here as I have found no reason to contemplate one considering lack of any evidence for any of the ones that have been posited by others. If it exists and doesn't effect me, then it is a don't care.
As for the perceived attacks, they are not, they are just intellectual sparring like in high-school debate where you are assigned a position and expected to argue it. I am a failed Unitarian by upbringing while my sister has gone California in her religious ecumenism and my brother has taken on many of the attributes of his wife's Vietnamese Christian-Buddhist upbringing though I think she sees it more as a teaching than a religion. I think he is more a theist than she is.

Anyhow, for now it is a glorious day outside that I will enjoy for what it is whyever it is.

 

[Pogo]

Ok

Do you have an example? And can any of these things you mention be realized?



I accept God is unknowable and cannot be realized, but I also attempt to know God and realize Him. I hold the first statement as true and attempt to prove it wrong.


I agree.

As what'shisname said there are known unknowns and unknowns, the comment was in reference to things that for the most part exist but maybe not.

 

[ratiocinator]

I posed a question and instead of answering you respond with a question.

Your question was "I propose a belief that a subject cannot be realized and is unknowable. Is this equivalent to "does not exist?""

My immediate response would be 'no', by asking "why would it be?", I simply giving you yet another chance to explain yourself.

It makes zero sense to me that you would want to use some other phrase instead of "does not exist", what the hell is the point if you think they mean the same anyway?

You seem to want to die on the bizarre hill of wanting to rephrase something in a way that seems to make no sense.

If you don't want to explain, then my answer of a simple 'no' stands.

 

[PureX]

The moment you define God you “know” God, or some aspect of God.

What you describe as unknowable I say cannot be realized.

We have a word for a realized unknowable. The word is “mystery”. It happens when what we do know leads us to understand that there is more to be known, but that for whatever reasons, we cannot access it. And in fact, our world is chock full of such mysteries. As we humans are quite good at formulating questions that we cannot access the answers to.

 

[ratiocinator]

We have a word for a realized unknowable. The word is “mystery”. It happens when what we do know leads us to understand that there is more to be known, but that for whatever reasons, we cannot access it. And in fact, our world is chock full of such mysteries. As we humans are quite good at formulating questions that we cannot access the answers to.

Which is all very well, as far as it goes, but you've done this 'bait and switch' con before. If you really want to use 'God' as a label for the mystery of why anything exists, it's simply a bizarre use of the language. But then in other posts suddenly this 'mystery' has acquired intention, planning, purpose, morality, and any number of other characteristics.

You really can't have it both ways. It's a just mystery or it has the characteristics of a classical monotheistic God. Not both.

 

[GoodAttention]

Your question was "I propose a belief that a subject cannot be realized and is unknowable. Is this equivalent to "does not exist?""

My immediate response would be 'no', by asking "why would it be?", I simply giving you yet another chance to explain yourself.

It makes zero sense to me that you would want to use some other phrase instead of "does not exist", what the hell is the point if you think they mean the same anyway?

You seem to want to die on the bizarre hill of wanting to rephrase something in a way that seems to make no sense.

If you don't want to explain, then my answer of a simple 'no' stands.

I got my answer from elsewhere so all good.

 

[PureX]

Which is all very well, as far as it goes, but you've done this 'bait and switch' con before. If you really want to use 'God' as a label for the mystery of why anything exists, it's simply a bizarre use of the language.

I’m sorry that you hate the word God. That it sends you and others here into an intense resentment toward some religious trauma in your past or whatever. I am personally indifferent to it, but it seems to be the commonly used term in our language referring to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. So I use it. And I really don’t care if people tend to anthropomorphize the idea of this mystery, so I’m not carrying any baggage about that, either.

But then in other posts suddenly this 'mystery' has acquired intention, planning, purpose, morality, and any number of other characteristics.

The mystery is real, in spite of all these silly attempts at rejecting and ignoring it. And nearly every human on the planet knows the reality of it, and ponders it, often, and many even base their lives on however they are choosing to conceptualize it for themselves. It’s the atheists that are the anomaly, trying to repress and deny the obvious, mostly in retaliation against religion, and resentment against a world that refuses to bow to their wildly grandiose view of science, and evidence, and intellect.

You really can't have it both ways. It's a just mystery or it has the characteristics of a classical monotheistic God. Not both.

“Just a mystery” that contains within it the source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

And I never even bring up any religious god concepts. I have little interest in them. Yet for some reason you can’t seem to let them go. And even now you’re throwing them in my face for no logical reason. The mystery is the mystery. It’s always there; a fundamental part of being human. always puzzling us, and defining is via our response to it. Religion is just the sideshow.

 

[GoodAttention]

We have a word for a realized unknowable. The word is “mystery”. It happens when what we do know leads us to understand that there is more to be known, but that for whatever reasons, we cannot access it. And in fact, our world is chock full of such mysteries. As we humans are quite good at formulating questions that we cannot access the answers to.

I considered a person who believed in an unknowable God that could also be realized and the words enlightenment and revelation came to mind.

Many examples in the real world also as you say.

 

[GoodAttention]

Which is all very well, as far as it goes, but you've done this 'bait and switch' con before. If you really want to use 'God' as a label for the mystery of why anything exists, it's simply a bizarre use of the language.

What’s bizarre is you’ve never heard the phrase God works in mysterious ways.

But then in other posts suddenly this 'mystery' has acquired intention, planning, purpose, morality, and any number of other characteristics.

Growth and change is good.

You really can't have it both ways. It's a just mystery or it has the characteristics of a classical monotheistic God. Not both.

Reason?

 

[PureX]

I considered a person who believed in an unknowable God that could also be realized and the words enlightenment and revelation came to mind.

Many examples in the real world also as you say.

I think the way to clear this issue up is to stop using the term “belief”. Belief requires the pretense of our knowing things that we can’t honestly know to be so. Belief is basically a dishonest and grandiose state of mind. So that if we want to be honest, and humble, what we are engaging in is faith, not belief. Through faith we are acting on our hope that this idea of God that we hold in our head, is so, even though we can’t know that it is. And the reason it is not illogical for us to do this is because whether or not our idea of God is accurate, our acting as if it is can bring us powerful positive benefits, and not just for ourselves, but for everyone around us. Faith in God is a very effective life tool whether God exists or not. And this is why the vast majority of humans that have ever lived, and are living currently, engage in faith in a God of some kind.