Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[Curious George]

My concept of god is of a formless, nameless, ineffable, and undefined ness-ness. It would be difficult to put into words.

Sounds like it would be difficult to put into thought, let alone words.

 

[Willamena]

Sounds like it would be difficult to put into thought, let alone words.

It's not like there is a difference...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I am a theist, and I love to talk with atheists on the issue of God exists or not.

Is it possible to talk with them, and I am not into converting them to accept the existence of God, but just to get to learn from them to think better, on the issue God exists or not.

To learn from them as to think better, am I lying?

No, I am not lying, I really want to see how they think as to themselves come to their position that there is no God; in that way I can and will get to be a better thinker, from knowing how others think who do not share my position of God existing.

It is like that I eat meat and vegetable, but there are folks who are vegetarians, so by talking with them on how to eat better, I can and will learn to adopt a better diet.


So, let me see if any atheists will talk with me.

I don't mind talking with you. My biggest pet peeve is one-sided conversations, though. If we are willing to learn from each other and step into each other's shoes, then by all means, bring it on

 

[shunyadragon]

As far as the God(s) of Judaism and Christianity I am adnostic (indifferent of the existence of these God(s) as described in the Bible and the doctrines and dogma of Christianity.) Actually as described in the Bible and Christian belief I do belief these God(s) of ancient beliefs in God(s) from the human perspective at the time of ancient Judaism, and the Roman/Hellenist world of the Christianity of the Roman world.

Is the Bible in any way true and consistent over time as to what God(s) is or is there truly one consistent Monotheistic God, based on scripture.

My answer is no, based on the scripture and the evidence of the historical view of God(s), It is very clear and specific that in the Old Testament, the concept of God(s) evolved from polytheism. to an hierarchical polytheism to Monotheism, and I believe reverted to a Roman/Hellenist Tritheism with minor gods like Mary 'Mother of God,' whom is depicted as a Roman goddess graphically.


.Theotokos: How the Mother Goddess became Mary
Technically, the church denied Mary as divine, as a Goddess, but in practical terms, it conveyed a sense of holiness which made her a viable rival to that other popular Roman/Greek/Egyptian hybrid Goddess of the time, represented variously as Diana, Cybele, and Isis. As a result of their decision, Mary’s divinity has been able to shine through in art and writing and devotion of those who love her.

Beautiful artwork throughout the world depicts Mary holding her infant son exactly as Isis had done for thousands of years before her. Many a home today displays a Christmas creche with Mary tenderly watching over the babe who is God incarnate. Mary is referred to as Mother of God in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, which together represent the majority of the Christian faithful.

Many people pray to this Queen of Heaven to intercede for them and miraculous cures and protections of entire countries in war are attributed to her and to her icons. The Vladimir Madonna, pictured above, is, for example, said to have saved Russia from Tamerlane in 1395, the Tatars in the 15th century, and even from Germany in World War II. A similar icon in Cosenza, Italy, has a spot which is said to represent the icon’s having absorbed the plague in the 16th Century and protected the city’s residents from that dread disease. And that’s just what her icons can do.

All this is inconsistent in Judaism and Christianity for the atheist to consider the these inconsistent belief in a Monotheistic God.

Based on this alone the atheist have a good argument against the existence of a theistic God, but of course there is more to the argument than this if you are proposing a sound consistent argument for God.

 

[Sanmario]

@columbus


Sorry, Columbus, I was distracted by another thread and just left it because I realized that I had been overly wasteful with my time and trouble there.

I have already posted a new message addressed to you and Curious George and everyone, in my other thread on "The object and concept of God and the existence of God."

Had you either quoted something I posted or put an @ in front of my screen name, I would have known about this reply.
But you didn't and I never thought about it again. I didn't think you had posted anything to me.
Your posting style and apparent lack of interest in what I post leaves me uninterested in carrying on a conversation with you. There are more engaging people on RF.
Tom

 

[Sanmario]

Sanmario said: ↑
Here is my concept of God:

”In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.”

Please present your concept of God, or if you don’t have one, then tell me what you have for your comments on my concept of God.

In this conceptualization of God, does consciousness have a beginning, and are the two intrinsically the same?

I have not thought about God's consciousness, but I am always asking myself whether when we are totally unconscious we do not exist, like as in deep dreamless sleep, in total general anesthesia, so that when we return to consciousness we realize that we don't have any memory whatsoever of anything during the hours which lapsed when were were completely unconscious.

That state should be no different from death, if there is no longer any kind of consciousness with us in death.

As I said, I have not thought about the consciousness of God; you see, my focus is on the concept of God in term of what He has achieved by which He is worthy of our attention, at all.

That is why I am always repeating:

In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

Recently twice Curious George told me that creator is superfluous in my concept of God.

I understand that he would prefer my concept to be less verbose.

So I told him and I tell everyone, my most brief concept of God is the following:

God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

 

[Sanmario]

This board is on philosophy, and therefore my focus here is on God as man knows him to exist by thinking on reason and observation and thus into intelligent conclusion,
that God exists in concept as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning.

So, dear posters here, we will not go into any kind of revelation by which some religions like Christianism and Judaism claim to know God, and that God has a chosen people.

Still if their doctrine statements are sensible in terms of reason and observation and thus intelligent conclusion by man, even without revelation; then I will give them value also, only because these statements are records of man's thinking, and we will not credit it with any value arising from revelation whatever.

For example, in Gen. 1:1 there is this statement:

"In the beginning God made heaven and earth."

To my evaluation, man could and did come to that thought without any revelation, but solely on thinking with his mind grounded on reason and observation, and thus into intelligent conclusion, that in the beginning there is god who made heaven and earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, dear posters here, we will not go into any kind of revelation by which some religions like Christianism and Judaism claim to know God, and that God has a chosen people.

Still if their doctrine statements are sensible in terms of reason and observation and thus intelligent conclusion by man, even without revelation; then I will give them value also, only because these statements are records of man's thinking, and we will not credit it with any value arising from revelation whatever.

For example, in Gen. 1:1 there is this statement:

"In the beginning God made heaven and earth."

To my evaluation, man could and did come to that thought without any revelation, but solely on thinking with his mind grounded on reason and observation, and thus into intelligent conclusion, that in the beginning there is god who made heaven and earth.

What you are proposing is a limited one-sided dialogue where you are only accepting certain positive aspects of Revelation in responses. The example you gave in Genesis is Revelation not human reasoning.

You will not get a meaningful dialogue with atheists if you limit the dialogue to only those points you approve of.

The wall you will run into is the atheists who justifiably consider that there is no objective evidence, nor anything grounded in reason and observation for the existence of God(s). The only justification they see on your part is the claim of Hebrew and Christian Revelation, which as I described is inconsistent and based heavily on ancient mythology.

 

[Sanmario]

Sorry, I was away from this my own thread, for I was overly wasteful with my time and trouble in another thread which I have left definitively just earlier this evening.
Now I will concentrate on my own two threads.


Dear Shunyadragon:

I see atheists to be into reasoning, and not into accepting any revelation, so they will dialog with me, because I am also into reasoning like them.

And also I agree with them that they have a rational position to demand evidence for God existing, but they should be receptive to my reasoning on logic and facts that there is evidence for God existing.

No self-respecting atheist will refuse to dialog with me on the ground that he says there is no evidence, for he will want to reason with me that he does not see evidence, and I will reason with him that there is evidence, and point out to him the evidence for God existing: so we are dialoging.
_________________

By the way, can anyone tell me how to remove this pop up from every page of Religiousforums.com, it takes up too much space on the screen and is always present even when I scrolling up down left right.

"You can now upgrade your account to site supporter status permanently and never see advertisements again! Today only it is half off!

For more information please click this link: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/lifetime-premium-membership-added.176992/"

 

[shunyadragon]

By the way, can anyone tell me how to remove this pop up from every page of Religiousforums.com, it takes up too much space on the screen and is always present even when I scrolling up down left right.

"You can now upgrade your account to site supporter status permanently and never see advertisements again! Today only it is half off!

For more information please click this link: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/lifetime-premium-membership-added.176992/"

Make a donation through the link for $18.75

 

[ChristineM]

Atheists are generally known for being extremely reticent regarding god and religion.

Wrong, just a different aspect, you look from the aspect of faith, we the atheists say show us the evidence to validate that such an aspect exists. To date no evidence has been forthcoming which seems to be kind of frustrating for you guys because you know that no such evidence exists.

Now if such valid, provable evidence should come to light then the source of that evidence would end atheism in a single stroke.

That is the difference between theist an atheist, a theist will only rarely alter their views in the face of evidence, an atheist on the other hand generally accepts the evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dear Shunyadragon:

I see atheists to be into reasoning, and not into accepting any revelation, so they will dialog with me, because I am also into reasoning like them.

And also I agree with them that they have a rational position to demand evidence for God existing, but they should be receptive to my reasoning on logic and facts that there is evidence for God existing.

No self-respecting atheist will refuse to dialog with me on the ground that he says there is no evidence, for he will want to reason with me that he does not see evidence, and I will reason with him that there is evidence, and point out to him the evidence for God existing: so we are dialoging.
_________________

It is best than to not selectively cite and refer to the Bible in your thread if you wish to stay away from the concept of Revelation in your argument.

 

[Sanmario]

@ChristineM
@Curious George
@columbus




Dear ChristineM, you say:

That is the difference between theist an[d] atheist, a theist will only rarely alter their views in the face of evidence, an atheist on the other hand generally accepts the evidence.​

I am a theist here in this philosophy board.

Dear atheists, please present me evidence to show that God does not exist, I will examine it to ascertain whether it is real evidence or not.

If it is real evidence, then I will accept it, otherwise I will reject it, telling you that your evidence is not evidence at all.

So, first I will examine your evidence to see whether it is real evidence, and secondly if it is real evidence I will accept it as real evidence; then you and I, we will evaluate its virtue in regard to inducing doubt in man's mnd to the non-existence of God.

Like this, dear atheists:

1. You present something like, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot Orbiting in Space.

2. I will examine the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Teapot Orbiting in Space, and you also with me examining these two items.

3. Once you and I concur that they are evidence,

4. We will evaluate their virtue to ascertain in our mind the truth that there is no God existing outside of the concept of God in our mind.


So, paging all atheists, show me your evidence indicating that God does not exist,

Wrong, just a different aspect, you look from the aspect of faith, we the atheists say show us the evidence to validate that such an aspect exists. To date no evidence has been forthcoming which seems to be kind of frustrating for you guys because you know that no such evidence exists.

Now if such valid, provable evidence should come to light then the source of that evidence would end atheism in a single stroke.

That is the difference between theist an atheist, a theist will only rarely alter their views in the face of evidence, an atheist on the other hand generally accepts the evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, paging all atheists, show me your evidence indicating that God does not exist,

This challenge is problematic, because you are demanding atheists 'prove the negative,' which is a fallacy, and unanswerable from any perspective. The existence of God cannot either be proved nor disproved.

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM
@Curious George
@columbus




Dear ChristineM, you say:

That is the difference between theist an[d] atheist, a theist will only rarely alter their views in the face of evidence, an atheist on the other hand generally accepts the evidence.​

I am a theist here in this philosophy board.

Dear atheists, please present me evidence to show that God does not exist, I will examine it to ascertain whether it is real evidence or not.

If it is real evidence, then I will accept it, otherwise I will reject it, telling you that your evidence is not evidence at all.

So, first I will examine your evidence to see whether it is real evidence, and secondly if it is real evidence I will accept it as real evidence; then you and I, we will evaluate its virtue in regard to inducing doubt in man's mnd to the non-existence of God.

Like this, dear atheists:

1. You present something like, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot Orbiting in Space.

2. I will examine the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Teapot Orbiting in Space, and you also with me examining these two items.

3. Once you and I concur that they are evidence,

4. We will evaluate their virtue to ascertain in our mind the truth that there is no God existing outside of the concept of God in our mind.


So, paging all atheists, show me your evidence indicating that God does not exist,

Well you make the claim for god's existence and yet have never provided evidence for such existence so you are asking what you are unable to provide. Of course we know you can't because there is no such evidence, see later.

As for me, i see several evidences that god's don't exist. First is E=MC2 which proves that no omnipotent God exists. That includes the abrahamic god and over 3000 other claimed omnipotent god's.

Next is childhood leukaemia which shows no compassionate God exists. No compassionate God would allow the completely innocent of creation to suffer.

Then we have the mosquito which shows no designer god can exist. Or explain why a designer who created a race to worship him also created an insect to kill that creation.

We also have the futility of prayer which is indicative that no listening god exists. Just ask the survivors of disaster whether they would prefer aid in the form of food and shelter or prayer.

And i have to add, proof by exhaustion, in over 10000 years of god worship, literally tens of billions of god believers have failed to show any evidence that a god or god's exist.

If you find any of those unobvious please ask for an explanation.

 

[Sanmario]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus


[ This is addressed to everyone who loves to talk philosophy. ]

From Shunyadragon

Sanmario said: So, paging all atheists, show me your evidence indicating that God does not exist.​

This challenge is problematic, because you are demanding atheists 'prove the negative,' which is a fallacy, and unanswerable from any perspective. The existence of God cannot either be proved nor disproved.

Wherefore: Atheists in arguing for God not existing are into a continuous fallacy, with attempting to prove a negative proposition, hahahahaha!

Now, from my philosophy perspectives, God can be proven when all parties concerned with God exists or not, all must first work as to concur on the concept of God, that is the philosophy way, okay!?

This board here is on philosophy.

Here is my concept of God, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Dear ChristineM. the evidence for God existing in that concept of God, it is everything with a beginning: that means the universe and man and everything else we see to have a beginning, like the nose in our face, and babies, and bees, and yes: everything that we experience in life.

What do you say about that!?

There is evidence galore of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

Talk philosophy!!!!

 

[ChristineM]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus


[ This is addressed to everyone who loves to talk philosophy. ]





Wherefore: Atheists in arguing for God not existing are into a continuous fallacy, with attempting to prove a negative proposition, hahahahaha!

Now, from my philosophy perspectives, God can be proven when all parties concerned with God exists or not, all must first work as to concur on the concept of God, that is the philosophy way, okay!?

This board here is on philosophy.

Here is my concept of God, God is the creator of everything with a beginning.

Dear ChristineM. the evidence for God existing in that concept of God, it is everything with a beginning: that means the universe and man and everything else we see to have a beginning, like the nose in our face, and babies, and bees, and yes: everything that we experience in life.

What do you say about that!?

There is evidence galore of God existing in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

Talk philosophy!!!!

Actually they are not arguing for god not to exist, they are arguing that there is no evidence to show gods do not exist and they go with the [ lack of evidence

I say you are moving the goalposts, you made a statement about considering alternatives and then you ignore them, you do not want a discussion, you want to dictate.

So to you... No there is no evidence, there is supposition, there is faith but there is no evidence to say a god or a fairy created anything.

So it seems you are just another creationist with no intention of considering evidence, just as i said in my introductory post.

 

[Sanmario]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus




Dear ChristineM, you say I am moving the goalposts, please give me your evidence that I am moving the goalposts,

Actually they are not arguing for god not to exist, they are arguing that there is no evidence to show gods do not exist and they go with the [ lack of evidence

I say you are moving the goalposts, you made a statement about considering alternatives and then you ignore them, you do not want a discussion, you want to dictate.

So to you... No there is no evidence, there is supposition, there is faith but there is no evidence to say a god or a fairy created anything.

So it seems you are just another creationist with no intention of considering evidence, just as i said in my introductory post.

 

[columbus]

Dear ChristineM, you say I am moving the goalposts, please give me your evidence that I am moving the goalposts,

"Moving goalposts" isn't how I would phrase it. But I have posted a few things and found you to ignore what I said and go on responding to things you think I believe instead. So I participate in other threads instead of yours. Threads where people discuss are more "flavorsome" than ones where some religious person mostly talks to themself. That's what you appear to prefer.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Such conversations are commonplace around here. That said, I often notice people talking past each other where there are differences in fundamental questions relating to one's worldview, irrespective of what the topic of discussion is. We just can't "get" something that is dramatically outside of the box that we think in. That is often the case with the issue you mention in the OP, @Sanmario.

I think a big part of the problem in both sides appreciating each other's points of view is that for a significant number of theists, appreciating an atheist's point of view means undermining their own worldview.

If a godless worldview is valid, then the belief that belief in their god(s) is absolutely vital must be incorrect.

I think this is a big part of why people will claim that atheists are "angry at God" and the like. The idea that a person could honestly and sincerely just not be convinced of their god (and be functional despite this) is utterly incompatible with some theist worldviews... much the same way that someone living comfortably under water without an air supply is utterly incompatible with worldviews that consider breathing to be vital to life.