Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

[YmirGF]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on Is it possible to talk with an atheist.

So, as I already made an opening statement, a request in fact, namely, what is your concept of God: “So, let you and me start with the concept of God, what do you say?" [See below for the post of concern.]

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.

No need to make comments on every line from my posts here, you feel that you should make comments on, just keep to the concept of God, that will make us concentrate instead of straying into irrelevant issues.

Addressing YmirGF:

[From Sanmario]
This is the philosophy board, so we will talk about God existing or not, purely on reason, observation. and intelligent conclusion, no bringing in any revelation whatsoever, unless the revelation is just an icing, but it is really the thinking that is grounded on reason and observation, leading thereby to intelligent conclusion.

For example, in the Bible there is this sentence, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth."

It's in the Bible wherefore it is taken by biblical believers to be a statement of revelation, but even without the Bible, among thinkers based purely on reason and observation they can and have come to the intelligent conclusion that there is a being which made heaven and earth.

So, let you and me start with the concept of God, what do you say?

YmirGF said: ↑

I am a so-called "strong" atheist. I love to talk to theists.


*absently sharpens fangs*


What would you like to discuss first?

I gather you firmly believe in a god being lording over creation.

I've been in that camp and no longer feel a need to support such presumptions.

Let's chat, shall we?

​

#11 Sanmario, Yesterday at 8:47 AM

​

As others have said, this thread didn't hold my interest enough to warrant looking back in on it. I said that I was aware of many god concepts and am not particularly impressed by the thinking evidenced in most of them. There are one or two I am partial too, but they are not of the Abrahamic faiths. That god concept is a peculiarly dwarfed notion, imho, held by those of little vision. No wonder its believers feel a need to believe in so-called revelation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@shunyadragon
@ChristineM
@hadrianus
@Curious George
@columbus
@9-10ths_Penguin
@siti




At this point in time, siti is no longer online.


When I see him later to have sent a post, I will answer it from this point below, the exchange between me and him.





I will be back myself later in the afternoon.

Please stop mentioning me in posts. My decision not to respond to you was deliberate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You've been talking to the wrong ones.

Most of the ones I talk to have a keen sense of identifying sarcasm.

 

[Willamena]

If I may...

The universe constantly changes.

A 'beginning' is a change from one state to another, precipitated by a cause.

A 'state' is a depiction (the appearance) of the circumstances providing what is the case.

A 'cause' is a change in state that itself precipitates a change in state.

The universe is a series of changes in state, a continuum of beginnings and endings.

'Time' is a record of the series of changes.

- If the universe has a point in time when it comes to be this series of changes, then its cause must be depicted, and hence a change of state that is part of the universe (contradiction).

 

[columbus]

Please stop mentioning me in posts I have no reason to care about. If you quote me I will read your response, but telling me about your coffee breaks is annoying.
Tom

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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 will talk with you.

For me it comes down to one thing, ultimately ; I see faith, as in belief without evidence, as a very impractical epistemology.

 

[ChristineM]

@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,

You made a statement of your proposed actions, you deliberately misrepresented those actions and injected your advertising for god.

Also remove me from your user list, your posts are spamming my notifications. Further infringement will be reported

 

[Sanmario]

@Williamena


Dear Willamena, you say "The universe constantly changes."

I like to read what you might be interested in this question from me to you, namely:

What is the difference between universe and existence?

If I may...

The universe constantly changes.

A 'beginning' is a change from one state to another, precipitated by a cause.

A 'state' is a depiction (the appearance) of the circumstances providing what is the case.

A 'cause' is a change in state that itself precipitates a change in state.

The universe is a series of changes in state, a continuum of beginnings and endings.

'Time' is a record of the series of changes.

- If the universe has a point in time when it comes to be this series of changes, then its cause must be depicted, and hence a change of state that is part of the universe (contradiction).

 

[siti]

In No. 3, you it appears forget to mention (it appears), why?

Because 3 is an obvious logical conclusion based on the appearances (objective existence and objective change) observed in what you call the "objectival" realm. My point is this: if you look at the reality of the world objectively you cannot deny that it is constantly changing - and if that is a correct observation, how could that change (not a change, but all change, change itself) possibly begin? Certainly it cannot come from 'no change'. Philosophically there is absolutely no way to establish the logical possibility of a beginning of change.

Your task now is to show me either 1. any aspect of reality that is not changing or 2. establish by logical inference how change itself could begin - i.e. have a beginning.

PS - I am not going to respond any further unless or until you provide an intelligent response to the last paragraph.

 

[Willamena]

@Williamena
What is the difference between universe and existence?

'Existence' describes the attitude that a thing "is." It is essential to belief (the attitude that something "is true").

'Universe' is the sum of what is.

 

[Milton Platt]

'Existence' describes the attitude that a thing "is." It is essential to belief (the attitude that something "is true").

'Universe' is the sum of what is.

Wouldn't existence be a state?

 

[Sanmario]

@siti


Sorry, I thought you left.

You say, "My point is this: if you look at the reality of the world objectively you cannot deny that it is constantly changing - and if that is a correct observation, how could that change (not a change, but all change, change itself) possibly begin? Certainly it cannot come from 'no change'. Philosophically there is absolutely no way to establish the logical possibility of a beginning of change."
________________


Here is my comment to your words:

A constantly changing environment comes from a cause that is outside the constantly changing environment, and it is also the operator of that constantly changing environment, to wit, the world we are living in.

This cause I call God in concept as the creator of everything with a beginning.

We know God exists as cause of everything with a beginning, like the universe and man and everything else man knows, like babies in the home and roses i the garden, the moon in the evening sky and the sun in the morning sky.

That much we know, that God is the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with beginning or change if you will.

Now, we can imagine all kinds of features that God has, and he can choose to take on all kinds of features as He wants to; who are we to say what He can do and what not?

Only one thing He cannot do, anything that is intrinsically self-incoherent and self-inconsistent, like for example, an existing parrot that is at the same time and in the same place not existing.

 

[siti]

We know God exists as cause of everything with a beginning, like the universe

That's exactly what you said earlier but so far you have failed to post a coherent sentence - let alone a compelling argument - in support of that baseless assumption. And you wonder why atheists don't want to talk with you?!!

I thought you left.

I have now.

 

[Sanmario]

@siti


You say in regard to my writing here on God existing:
"That's exactly what you said earlier but so far you have failed to post a coherent sentence - let alone a compelling argument - in support of that baseless assumption. And you wonder why atheists don't want to talk with you?!!"

Please quote one incoherent sentence I have written in proving God existing.

 

[Sanmario]

@Willamena

Sanmario said: ↑
@Williamena
What is the difference between universe and existence?

'Existence' describes the attitude that a thing "is." It is essential to belief (the attitude that something "is true").

'Universe' is the sum of what is.

You say, existence is an attitude [etc.], and universe is the sum of what is.

I see you go into something of psychology, namely, attitude, like existence is an attitude [etc.]

And universe, is or is it not also an attitude?

Perhaps, if I may, so that you will be into the same psychological stance in regard to existence and also universe, think about what follows below, my suggestion to you.

You say: 'Existence' describes the attitude that a thing "is."
So, what about you also say of universe:
'Universe' describes the attitude of what the sum "is."

Are you and I smiling?


You see, dear lady, I am talking in the direction of that existence is greater than universe, so universe is a component of existence.

What do you say by way of comment to my thinking, or you also observe that I have not made any coherent sentence here, that is why atheists are not talking with me? Hahahahaha,

 

[Sanmario]

Please stay with me.

Here is something that I like us both to talk about:

The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

 

[Willamena]

@Willamena





You say, existence is an attitude [etc.], and universe is the sum of what is.

I see you go into something of psychology, namely, attitude, like existence is an attitude [etc.]

And universe, is or is it not also an attitude?

Perhaps, if I may, so that you will be into the same psychological stance in regard to existence and also universe, think about what follows below, my suggestion to you.

You say: 'Existence' describes the attitude that a thing "is."
So, what about you also say of universe:
'Universe' describes the attitude of what the sum "is."

Are you and I smiling?

We are smiling, except that 'Universe' is not so much an attitude, as an image.

'"What is" an image, and the universe is the sum of "what is."

You see, dear lady, I am talking in the direction of that existence is greater than universe, so universe is a component of existence.

What do you say by way of comment to my thinking, or you also observe that I have not made any coherent sentence here, that is why atheists are not talking with me? Hahahahaha,

Existence is greater than universe, yes. Universe is not a component, so much as an artwork.

 

[Sanmario]

Thanks, Willamena, for your reply.

How have you come to this thread in philosophy?

You are to my notice trending to poetry, am I correct?

I have this idea that there is a proof for God to exist, but humans have to first concur on concepts, first of course the concept of God.

I don't see your self description in regard to religious affiliation.

Are you inclined to religion or spirituality? I think poets tend to be into some sort of spirituality - why? Because imagery is more of the spirit than of cold logic in words.

I will be back tomorrow morning, some posters are not happy with me, perhaps you can help me, tell me why, for example read some of my interactions with some posters here, and you will feel their hostility against me, or is it all in my mind?

We are smiling, except that 'Universe' is not so much an attitude, as an image.

'"What is" an image, and the universe is the sum of "what is."


Existence is greater than universe, yes. Universe is not a component, so much as an artwork.

 

[Willamena]

I have this idea that there is a proof for God to exist, but humans have to first concur on concepts, first of course the concept of God.

I don't see your self description in regard to religious affiliation.

Are you inclined to religion or spirituality?

No.

I think poets tend to be into some sort of spirituality - why? Because imagery is more of the spirit than of cold logic in words.

I will be back tomorrow morning, some posters are not happy with me, perhaps you can help me, tell me why, for example read some of my interactions with some posters here, and you will feel their hostility against me, or is it all in my mind?

I doubt that I could help you explain other RF posters.

 

[Sanmario]

@Willamena


You have not reacted to my invitation to let us two talk philosophy in regard to God exists or not, perhaps it is because you are not an atheist, and this thread of yours truly is into the question:

Is it possible to talk with an atheist?

Thanks just the same for reading my thread.

Now, there are alert notice boxes popping up, some posters must have reacted to my posts sent earlier; tell you what, Can you see that atheists insist that there is no evidence for God existing, but when I ask them for their concept of God, they will go into beating about the bush but never coming up with their concept of God, or say that God is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, what do you think about that kind of an attitude, in regard to the issue of God exists or not - and they take up with the negative on lack of evidence, but they don't tell mankind what is their concept of God and what is their concept of evidence.

See you again later, when you react again here.