"Scientism" on Wikipedia ...

[RestlessSoul]

That doesn't suggest we are living in a simulation though, and it certainly isn't a reason to doubt the physical universe is real.


Still banging the same gong, and still the same hollow sound from it.

No, we aren't living in a simulation. Reality, however, is certainly far more complex and composed of far more dimensions, than anything we are able to perceive.

As for doubting the fabric from which the natural world is woven, try this from quantum physicist Carlo Rovelli;
"If the world were made of things, what would those things be? The atoms, which we have discovered to be made up in turn of smaller particles? The elementary particles, which as we have discovered, are nothing more than ephemeral agitations of a field? The quantum fields, which we have found to be little more than codes of a language with which to speak of interactions and events? We cannot think of the physical world as if it were made of things, entities. It simply doesn't work."
- Rovelli, Helgoland

 

[joelr]

There are lots of ways theists imagine God. All of the above can be understood in a myriad of different ways, from literal, to symbolic. But I don't think that most Christians literally do believe God has a physical body. God appearing on earth for example, are considered as 'theophanies' or temporary physical manifestations. Not that God has a literal body, like Mormons believe. They are pretty unique in that regard.

They believe a God interacts somehow with humans. Answered prayer, manifestations, whatever.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think when a mature person says to someone else that they love them, they aren't thinking of their immediate emotional states. A teenager or a small child might, but an adult is generally speaking of an attitude of commitment and respect with which they esteem that other person. Deeper still, love is a philosophy of life. And that is something that exists outside the person. Love is timeless, as the poets all know. Love is eternal as the mystic knows.

You have not provided evidence of love existing outside peoples mind. Philosophy, poetry, mysticism, all inside the mind.

Yeah, that was my doing where I was citing from. That was how that person was reading Fowler's work. Fowler himself, doesn't use that language necessarily. And it matters not actually, as he did follow the rigors of scientific research, and his work is cited by numerous other academics as valid developmental research.

Yes he follows rigors. He has never shown the divine is a literal real thing outside of our ideas.

That is untrue. It does delve into the nature of faith and its human origins. It's not a God-biased theological work. Not at all.

Theologians work assumes their religious deity is real. They do not attempt to debunk that. The article also assumes the divine is a real thing.

I'm not assuming it. I know it is. You are assuming it's a religious treatise, which it is not.

You have not put forth any evidence the divine is anything in reality. Nature is the only thing outside of us. If you call it "divine" as a metaphor then it's still just nature.

If you think what I am talking about relates to a Marvel movie experience, you are either mocking it, or you simply don't understand the nature of what peak experiences are. In which case, this is not an actual discussion about what I'm talking about.

Peak experiences are mental. They do not demonstrate anything outside of us called "the divine". Maslow peak experiences are psychological. who are you to say I cannot have a peak experience contemplating Thor.

Why do you keep assuming I am saying God or the Divine is outside of you? This is a hangover from mythic-literal Christianity that sees God as external to oneself an creation at large. That's simply a mental device to think of God as 'other' to oneself. But as far as Sam Harris being Enlightened? Does he claim he is? That's news to me.

Because my entire argument is that the divine does not exist outside of ourselves. If you are moving the goal post to the divine being our higher self then I'm not debating against that.
sam Harris went through Hindu meditation training to reach states of enlightenment. He achieved them and regards them as psychological states.

You don't like the word Divine. Okay, "this experience is transcendent". "This experience of of the Absolute". Any better? And yes, there is by an large agreement on what that means by researchers. You may chose to disregard those because you "don't believe it", but that's not due to anything other than person biases and chosen disbelief and cynicism. Not actual scholarly dispute.

I don't believe there is good evidence for any supernatural realm, dimension and such and I find experiences of absolute and such to be experiences of emotional and psychological states.

And you say this based upon what, other than cynicism? I've experienced it myself. So have many others. That is what researchers are looking at. Real experiences. Just because you wish to pollute those experiences with theological boogeymen of your own projected fears, does not mean any of us see those experiences that way. That, if anything, is "all in your own head".

I wish to pollute with truth. I don't doubt that people have experiences? I'm not in fear. I want to expose claims of supernatural, metaphysical and such as ideas that do not have good evidence to support them because they lead to a string of magical thinking and away from critical thinking.

I've never claimed it does. Why are you supplying that in this conversation? Is that something you fear might be real because you were made afraid of it by fundamentalists in your life?

You are trying too hard. Nothing to do with my past. You can't be wishy-washy then be all "I never said that!" So you said things like "love doesn't exist just in the mind". Well it does. So naturally I thought you were leading to some external reality outside our thoughts, maybe this "divine"? Either way, that's what you have been giving me so to move the goal post again and then say it must be my past?
Yeah my past, like 2 posts ago, what you wrote sounded like you were defending an external metaphysical force that can be tapped into by mental states.
If it's all in the mind, well then I agree?

I've remarked to others in this thread how this enters into the discussion completly from the minds of those projecting their own fears. You'll never find me making these claims. Who is it you are actually debating here? Your own demons?
.

And, you doubled down. I'm debating concepts that are vague and changing. Clearly you are the one debating demons from the past because you just admitted it right above? were you clear on all these experiences exist in our minds then I would agree but you have been hinting at external forces. Like philosophy is all around us rather than in us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are just using unfalsifiable statements. I cannot prove it's a fact that Superman isn't real. Processes in the mind are physical, we have no reason to think they are not. simple life forms with very simple nervous systems can be understood. Insect brains can be understood. We know our brains evolved from simple life. There is no point where suddenly brains are so complicated that you need invoke "non-physical" properties.
It's the same logic as when hominids became human then they suddenly get a soul and can go to an afterlife.
Brains and mental states evolved from simpler versions which were physical. They still are. I haven't seen any papers from neuro-science where brains produce mental states and therefore cannot be part of physical reality?
We cannot demonstrate thoughts because our technology is limited and there are restrictions on studying living brains. It's possible one day an advanced enough supercomputer will explain the details of consciousness at the quantum level processes in the brain.
At best you can only assert thoughts are metaphysical, no different than claims of Gods that has no evidence.

There is no physical reality. That is an idea in your mind. There are some parts of the everyday world, where human behavior in regards to some conditions qualify as physical. You are doing philosophy.

 

[Sheldon]

Which is why philosophical materialism was long ago declared a failed reality paradigm. And I don't understand why so many folks, here, insist on trying to maintain it.

Probably has something to do with you using it as a straw man fallacy, every time someone asks you to demonstrate something beyond unevidenced subjective opinion for your beliefs.

 

[joelr]

There are lots of ways theists imagine God. All of the above can be understood in a myriad of different ways, from literal, to symbolic. But I don't think that most Christians literally do believe God has a physical body. God appearing on earth for example, are considered as 'theophanies' or temporary physical manifestations. Not that God has a literal body, like Mormons believe. They are pretty unique in that regard.

They believe a God interacts somehow with humans. Answered prayer, manifestations, whatever.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think when a mature person says to someone else that they love them, they aren't thinking of their immediate emotional states. A teenager or a small child might, but an adult is generally speaking of an attitude of commitment and respect with which they esteem that other person. Deeper still, love is a philosophy of life. And that is something that exists outside the person. Love is timeless, as the poets all know. Love is eternal as the mystic knows.

You have not provided evidence of love existing outside peoples mind. Philosophy, poetry, mysticism, all inside the mind.

Yeah, that was my doing where I was citing from. That was how that person was reading Fowler's work. Fowler himself, doesn't use that language necessarily. And it matters not actually, as he did follow the rigors of scientific research, and his work is cited by numerous other academics as valid developmental research.

Yes he follows rigors. He has never shown the divine is a literal real thing outside of our ideas.

That is untrue. It does delve into the nature of faith and its human origins. It's not a God-biased theological work. Not at all.

Theologians work assumes their religious deity is real. They do not attempt to debunk that. The article also assumes the divine is a real thing.

I'm not assuming it. I know it is. You are assuming it's a religious treatise, which it is not.

You have not put forth any evidence the divine is anything in reality. Nature is the only thing outside of us. If you call it "divine" as a metaphor then it's still just nature.

If you think what I am talking about relates to a Marvel movie experience, you are either mocking it, or you simply don't understand the nature of what peak experiences are. In which case, this is not an actual discussion about what I'm talking about.

Peak experiences are mental. They do not demonstrate anything outside of us called "the divine". Maslow peak experiences are psychological. who are you to say I cannot have a peak experience contemplating Thor.

Why do you keep assuming I am saying God or the Divine is outside of you? This is a hangover from mythic-literal Christianity that sees God as external to oneself an creation at large. That's simply a mental device to think of God as 'other' to oneself. But as far as Sam Harris being Enlightened? Does he claim he is? That's news to me.

Because my entire argument is that the divine does not exist outside of ourselves. If you are moving the goal post to the divine being our higher self then I'm not debating against that.
sam Harris went through Hindu meditation training to reach states of enlightenment. He achieved them and regards them as psychological states.

You don't like the word Divine. Okay, "this experience is transcendent". "This experience of of the Absolute". Any better? And yes, there is by an large agreement on what that means by researchers. You may chose to disregard those because you "don't believe it", but that's not due to anything other than person biases and chosen disbelief and cynicism. Not actual scholarly dispute.

I don't believe there is good evidence for any supernatural realm, dimension and such and I find experiences of absolute and such to be experiences of emotional and psychological states.

And you say this based upon what, other than cynicism? I've experienced it myself. So have many others. That is what researchers are looking at. Real experiences. Just because you wish to pollute those experiences with theological boogeymen of your own projected fears, does not mean any of us see those experiences that way. That, if anything, is "all in your own head".

I wish to pollute with truth. I don't doubt that people have experiences?

I've never claimed it does. Why are you supplying that in this conversation? Is that something you fear might be real because you were made afraid of it by fundamentalists in your life?

You are trying too hard. Nothing to do with my past. You can't be wishy-washy then be all "I never said that!" So you said things like "love doesn't exist just in the mind". Well it does. So naturally I thought you were leading to some external reality outside our thoughts, maybe this "divine"? Either way, that's what you have been giving me so to move the goal post again and then say it must be my past?
Yeah my past, like 2 posts ago, what you wrote sounded like you were defending an external metaphysical force that can be tapped into by mental states.
If it's all in the mind, well then I agree?

I've remarked to others in this thread how this enters into the discussion completly from the minds of those projecting their own fears. You'll never find me making these claims. Who is it you are actually debating here? Your own demons?
.

And, you doubled down. I'm debating concepts that are vague and changing. Clearly you are the one debating demons from the past because you just admitted it right above? were you clear on all these experiences exist in our minds then I would agree but you have been hinting at external forces.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The context of the statement was a response to the idea that the universe isn't objective and reducible. But the uncertainty principle and the standard model follow objective rules. We can reduce the universe to basic laws and there are limits to the amount of information that is available. The amount may be large but there are only so many variables to each Planck volume, eventually there is a limit less than infinity.
The universe can be reduced to the basic components? Why not?

The jury, I believe, is still out on whether any infinities exist either within or beyond the universe. Certainly as both mathematical and metaphysical constructs, infinities do exist.

If all matter is granular, ie it can be reduced to an identifiable smallest component, then you could argue that everything in the physical universe is quantifiable. But what of time and space? There is a Planck quanta of time, shown as 10 to the power of -43 seconds. But this is based on a calculation of how long it takes a photon of light to traverse a Planck length, therefore it is a metaphysical concept, and a mathematical abstraction. And even if time is reducible to it's smallest component parts, still we haven't solved the puzzle of infinite regress or progress. Did the universe have a beginning? Will it - does it - have an end, or does it go on expanding for eternity? In which case, how do you measure eternity.

Once we start investigating any quantum phenomena, we run into the measurement problem Measurement problem - Wikipedia
It is not possible to gain an objective vision of the universe, to passively regard it as it would be if we were not observing it. Quantum contextually rules this out. The only possible objective perspective of the universe would by definition, if it were to exist at all, have to be a God's eye view.

 

[joelr]

Superman is real. That is a self evident fact. What you can't prove is that Superman is a living physical being. And that is the difference between physical reality and metaphysical reality. Both exist, but they are not both physically extant. One is physically extant and the other is conceptually extant. Both are real, and they both interact with and effect the other.

Which is why philosophical materialism was long ago declared a failed reality paradigm. And I don't understand why so many folks, here, insist on trying to maintain it.

Yes Superman and all Gods are conceptually extant.

 

[joelr]

There is no physical reality. That is an idea in your mind. There are some parts of the everyday world, where human behavior in regards to some conditions qualify as physical. You are doing philosophy.

Unfortunately for that idea we can take repeated measurements on spacetime and fundamental properties of physical reality and get predictable results. That is physical reality. I don't care about philosophical wanking.

 

[joelr]

The jury, I believe, is still out on whether any infinities exist either within or beyond the universe. Certainly as both mathematical and metaphysical constructs, infinities do exist.

If all matter is granular, ie it can be reduced to an identifiable smallest component, then you could argue that everything in the physical universe is quantifiable. But what of time and space? There is a Planck quanta of time, shown as 10 to the power of -43 seconds. But this is based on a calculation of how long it takes a photon of light to traverse a Planck length, therefore it is a metaphysical concept, and a mathematical abstraction. And even if time is reducible to it's smallest component parts, still we haven't solved the puzzle of infinite regress or progress. Did the universe have a beginning? Will it - does it - have an end, or does it go on expanding for eternity? In which case, how do you measure eternity.

Once we start investigating any quantum phenomena, we run into the measurement problem Measurement problem - Wikipedia
It is not possible to gain an objective vision of the universe, to passively regard it as it would be if we were not observing it. Quantum contextually rules this out. The only possible objective perspective of the universe would by definition, if it were to exist at all, have to be a God's eye view.

The Planck time and length have physical properties. At this scale quantum effects take over space and time making them fuzzy and undefinable. It is the limit to spacetime at least.
I know about the U Principle.
Infinities in conceptual things exist. Rudy Rucker covers them in Infinity and the Mind.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The Planck time and length have physical properties. At this scale quantum effects take over space and time making them fuzzy and undefinable. It is the limit to spacetime at least.
I know about the U Principle.
Infinities in conceptual things exist. Rudy Rucker covers them in Infinity and the Mind.

Planck time and length have theoretical physical properties, the postulate being that they are the minimal levels of precision by which any measurement can be made; the limits of reduction beyond which no further division is possible. But what we are really discussing here is a language by which we understand and describe the universe; and language is a metaphysical human construct. So as soon as we begin trying to make sense of the physical world using semantics, mathematics, or laws of science, we are as @mikkel_the_dane says, well into the realm of philosophy. There may be Science without a philosophy of science, but that will not serve to give us a full understanding of the universe

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately for that idea we can take repeated measurements on spacetime and fundamental properties of physical reality and get predictable results. That is physical reality. I don't care about philosophical wanking.

Yeah, now express the meaning of the bold one in physical measurements. But you can't, so you have done something which has no one to one physical measurements.

 

[PureX]

Probably has something to do with you using it as a straw man fallacy, every time someone asks you to demonstrate something beyond unevidenced subjective opinion for your beliefs.

You have to keep attacking because you can't defend. It must be exhausting.

 

[PureX]

Yes Superman and all Gods are conceptually extant.

Right along side 'truth', 'reality', 'existence', and 'objective physical evidence'.

Turns out that physicality without metaphysicality is ... nothing at all. Of no consequence whatever.

 

[Windwalker]

They believe a God interacts somehow with humans. Answered prayer, manifestations, whatever.

You speak as if theists all think about God with all the same ideas. Just your language here says that you see their idea of God as other to humans, outside of them, coming to their homes to answer prayers, from his perch up in the heavens somewhere, or something like like that. Are you sure all theists imagine God they way you are imagining God is to them?

You have not provided evidence of love existing outside peoples mind. Philosophy, poetry, mysticism, all inside the mind.

So does all your concepts of reality. But if you want to talk about these things as outside of people's minds, you have already provided your own evidence in the above sentence. You are speaking of these as objective things which we can talk about.

They aren't just inside your own head, but are something in shared mutual spaces which we are able to form ideas and concepts around them in order to think about them, interact with them, and talk about them in this discussion. You are pointing to them as things, as objective of discussion. They things humans experience and share in common spaces. They have actual reality in order for that to be.

Think of it in terms of a tornado. Is a tornado something in itself, without the winds that create it? Yet we all know a tornado is something real, even if it exists through emergent processes. Try thinking outside the box a little here.

Unless you mean they don't have physical forms in itself, without any interactions or participation which gives it life and being? But then who made that the criteria for what is to be considered objective, or "outside of one's own head"? You? If you see it as something more than one person experiences, then it is beyond "all in their head".

Yes he follows rigors. He has never shown the divine is a literal real thing outside of our ideas.

Oh dear god. You don't get it, do you? Does he have to? That's not the point of the research. It's about people's faith in whatever they place that into - including atheism. It's about meaning making. Not about proving God, or some other such complete twaddle.

Theologians work assumes their religious deity is real.

You assume this. You are wrong.

They do not attempt to debunk that. The article also assumes the divine is a real thing.

This really bothers you, doesn't it? That if somehow what others call the divine is a real thing, that must mean the God of Fear from your childhood might actually be true and come to get you, or something, right? Why such a closed mind on the topic, boxing it into a corner of your own fears if it's not the case?

You have not put forth any evidence the divine is anything in reality. Nature is the only thing outside of us. If you call it "divine" as a metaphor then it's still just nature.

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself, more than anyone else. BTW, I've never said that the Divine is not Nature. I view Nature with a capital N, meaning it is Divine. But you see it as nothing but rocks. I see it as something more than that. Seeing the Divine, is a matter of perception. Not whether or not it is actually rocks. Of course a rock is a rock. But you see only a rock. I see an expression of the Divine.

Peak experiences are mental. They do not demonstrate anything outside of us called "the divine". Maslow peak experiences are psychological. who are you to say I cannot have a peak experience contemplating Thor.

I suppose you could. But you'd need to describe the nature of it for me to consider it as fitting an authentic peak experience. I doubt that, based on your completely flattened ideas of reality expressed in your comments and feedback to what I'm posting. You simply can't see or hear anything that is being said.

Because my entire argument is that the divine does not exist outside of ourselves.

You're trying to box this discussion into a strawman argument of your own design. You're not having a conversation with me, but with your own fears.

I could continue and respond to each of your other comments, but you're just repeating the same things. You're having a debate with your own fears, not with me.

 

[Sheldon]

You have to keep attacking because you can't defend. It must be exhausting.

Good one, I point out your posts consist of nothing but angry straw man attacks on atheism, and you respond with a straw man accusation, pretending it's the other way, irony yes?

 

[Windwalker]

Yeah my past, like 2 posts ago, what you wrote sounded like you were defending an external metaphysical force that can be tapped into by mental states.
If it's all in the mind, well then I agree?

It is you hearing this in terms of a radical dualistic perception of reality. That is that if someone speaks of the Divine, it has to be other to me as the subject. You are forcing things into this framework, and therefore what is being said doesn't compute for you.

I believe that subject and object duality is a construct. Not reality. It's a matter of language and perception. Not actuality. The Divine is in fact neither subjective nor objective in that sense. It just IS. It exists in me, as me, and in the tree, as the tree, in everything and in nothing. Language is ill equipped to speak of "it" because language is dualistic in nature.

So we can in fact speak of the Divine from a subjective set of eyes, speaking of the Divine as an "object" outside of ourselves. But we can equally speak of the Divine as our true Self, subjectively looking within. And when we do that, at a certain point in breaking down this construct of a dualistic reality as a matter of perception, we find that common experience expressed as "Oneness", or the nondual.

"God" is not other to owns own self. But the idea of separate self is also itself dissolved and is now gone. That separation between the self and the divine is moved beyond. It itself is exposed an illusion of the mind, which we mistook as the actuality of Reality. It is a perception of reality, a relative truth, not an absolute Reality. It is "functionally true", but not Absolutely true. The separate self is as much an illusion of the mind and language, as imagining the Divine as outside oneselves or creation as a whole is.

So no, it's not outside yourself. But you are also not separate either. Both are an illusion of the mind. So when you say "It's all just in your mind". that is false. That presumes a separate self, outside the world, just like it imagines God to be.

You will probably call this vague or 'wishy washy", but that is because you will be struggling to try to fit it into your idea of reality, which itself exits, "only in your head". Everything you say about God not being real, can equally be said about your own idea of yourself as a separate object existing in reality disconnected and isolated from others also. It too is just a mental construct. So it's not just imagining God as a being outside yourself, but imagining yourself as a being outside God.

 

[Sheldon]

Turns out that physicality without metaphysicality is ... nothing at all.

Turns out that's yet another bare claim.

Of no consequence whatever.

Well exactly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good one, I point out your posts consist of nothing but angry straw man attacks on atheism, and you respond with a straw man accusation, pretending it's the other way, irony yes?

Now, just show that all experiences and all human behavior can be describe in purely physical terms and you are home free home.
You could start will all the words in your post. Rephrase them in physical terms and not as for some of them first personal feelings.

So here it is again. Some parts of the universe can be described for some human experiences in relationship to some processes in physical terms, but not all.
You are doing philosophy but you apparently don't know it, because you apparently live in a culture that in part accepts the belief that universe is physical.
And no, it doesn't mean that there is a God. It means there are limits to objective evidence and rationality.

 

[lukethethird]

They believe a God interacts somehow with humans. Answered prayer, manifestations, whatever.



You have not provided evidence of love existing outside peoples mind. Philosophy, poetry, mysticism, all inside the mind.



Yes he follows rigors. He has never shown the divine is a literal real thing outside of our ideas.





Theologians work assumes their religious deity is real. They do not attempt to debunk that. The article also assumes the divine is a real thing.



You have not put forth any evidence the divine is anything in reality. Nature is the only thing outside of us. If you call it "divine" as a metaphor then it's still just nature.



Peak experiences are mental. They do not demonstrate anything outside of us called "the divine". Maslow peak experiences are psychological. who are you to say I cannot have a peak experience contemplating Thor.



Because my entire argument is that the divine does not exist outside of ourselves. If you are moving the goal post to the divine being our higher self then I'm not debating against that.
sam Harris went through Hindu meditation training to reach states of enlightenment. He achieved them and regards them as psychological states.



I don't believe there is good evidence for any supernatural realm, dimension and such and I find experiences of absolute and such to be experiences of emotional and psychological states.



I wish to pollute with truth. I don't doubt that people have experiences? I'm not in fear. I want to expose claims of supernatural, metaphysical and such as ideas that do not have good evidence to support them because they lead to a string of magical thinking and away from critical thinking.



You are trying too hard. Nothing to do with my past. You can't be wishy-washy then be all "I never said that!" So you said things like "love doesn't exist just in the mind". Well it does. So naturally I thought you were leading to some external reality outside our thoughts, maybe this "divine"? Either way, that's what you have been giving me so to move the goal post again and then say it must be my past?
Yeah my past, like 2 posts ago, what you wrote sounded like you were defending an external metaphysical force that can be tapped into by mental states.
If it's all in the mind, well then I agree?



And, you doubled down. I'm debating concepts that are vague and changing. Clearly you are the one debating demons from the past because you just admitted it right above? were you clear on all these experiences exist in our minds then I would agree but you have been hinting at external forces. Like philosophy is all around us rather than in us.

Having read this post of yours it sounds like you are opposed to scientism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And that is the difference between physical reality and metaphysical reality. Both exist, but they are not both physically extant. One is physically extant and the other is conceptually extant. Both are real, and they both interact with and effect the other.

What you fail to understand is that if mind and matter interact, they are fundamentally the same thing. You very much want to create a separate and distinct category of being or domain of reality for gods, because since there is no physical evidence for them, you want them to be thought of as existing in a separate reality with different rules.

But that is an incoherent proposition. If mind and matter weren't the same substance manifesting differently, like matter and energy, or space and time, they would be causally disconnected. Neither would interact with the other. Brain couldn't affect mind, nor mind brain, which is obviously not the case.

Which is why philosophical materialism was long ago declared a failed reality paradigm.

No, it wasn't, although it is called physicalism now that it is understood that matter is fundamentally interwoven with energy, force, time, and space, and they all came into existence together if we are to believe that the universe had a beginning.

Theists like to invent nonexistent crises in science and philosophy. How often are we told that the theory of evolution is in crisis?

And who even uses such language in these discussions but the theists here? Skeptics talk about providing evidence, theists balk, and complain about materialism. I almost never use the word, and I don't recall any other skeptic doing so, either, except perhaps in response to a post like yours.

And yet you are SO certain that the material world is all there is.

Strawman. Nobody's saying that but you.

You have to keep attacking because you can't defend. It must be exhausting.

He need defend nothing. He's trying to explain to you why he rejects your thinking, but he doesn't owe you that.

You don't believe God exists because no one has given you any evidence that God exists. (No one has given you any evidence that God does not exist, either, but you ignore this.)

No, I didn't ignore that. I'm an agnostic atheist, remember? I neither claim that gods exist or don't for lack of evidence. But then, you were never too interested in what others have to say. You see what you want to see, and then criticize your strawman.

But then you say that you could be wrong and that God actually may exist even though you have no evidence of it. But obviously you don't believe that you are wrong, because you don't believe God exists. (You are a self-proclaimed atheist, after all.)

Nope. I didn't say I could be wrong about gods. You said that, and likely because you still haven't heard a single agnostic atheist tell you that he is not denying the possibility of the existence of gods. And I suspect you never will. That idea will never exist in your head. If it were possible, it would already be there, as many times as you have been corrected.

It's ALL about you thinking that if God exists you would know it, which is why you believe God doesn't exist.

Wrong again. Of course, I've already told you that, but we know how that goes.

Yet, as soon as I point this out, you will immediately proclaim that you are not an atheist after all, that you believe maybe God does exist, but that you just don't know if God exists or not because there is no evidence of it. Again, proclaiming your agnosticism based on the failure of your previous gnostic assumption that unless you see evidence, you must believe that no gods exist.

Still wrong. I have never said I'm not an atheist. That's just more of your confusion arising from your inability to listen to what others tell you. You're in a dream world there of your own creation. My position is nothing like that.

It's not my fault that your proclaimed position is silly, incoherent, and looks pretty disingenuous when you continually refuse to take any responsibility for it.

Yes, it is your fault that you haven't been able to see the coherence of my position, because you don't know that position due to your inattention, and keep inserting your own confusion for my words to you. Of course you're confused. Of course it looks silly to you. You created it.

Take responsibility for what? Your errors? You accused another poster who was telling you why he rejects your position of being defensive, and now me, who also rejects it, of being irresponsible by failing to take some imagined responsibility you seem to think I have to you. It's you failing to take responsibility by ignoring what is written to you, and returning to make the same mistakes again and again.

I'd help if I could, but I'd need your cooperation. I just can't get through to you. It's not that you disagree with what I write you, because you don't acknowledge that you ever read or understood it. If you had ever once said something like, "I don't agree with your definition of atheist because ..." then we might have actually had a discussion, a two-way exchange of ideas. But you don't do that. I've defined atheism as most atheists understand the world for you a dozen times, and there is just crickets from you, as if it were written in Javanese.