Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Polymath257]

Consider that there is evidence that we’re just not perceiving for the most part?

Then find a method of reliable detection. We've done this for all sorts of other things (radio waves, infrared, ultrasound, neutrinos, etc).

Why not? If all descriptions of the Divine are metaphor, and if metaphors speak to what they illustrate, cannot all religious metaphors speak to the Divine from different perspectives?

If *all* descriptions are metaphor, then none is valid. Metaphors, like similes, attempt to compare things. But for things that really exist, metaphor isn't required (although it can clarify some difficult points to understand).

 

[Audie]

It appears that he is trying to use a Tu Quoque fallacy. He probably realizes that faith is not rational so he wants to accuse others of what he is doing wrong as an excuse for his beliefs.

That is on page one of "Intro to Creorhetoric 101"

It shoes up in "atheism is as religion"
"science is a religion"
"atheists make themselves god"
"paradigm"
and even in the trashy and stupid trick
of a calling SEDI-
"same evidence, differfent interpretation"

 

[Audie]

Then find a method of reliable detection. We've done this for all sorts of other things (radio waves, infrared, ultrasound, neutrinos, etc).



If *all* descriptions are metaphor, then none is valid. Metaphors, like similes, attempt to compare things. But for things that really exist, metaphor isn't required (although it can clarify some difficult points to understand).

I hear it is in a book that you wont believe if you read it.
What is the name of the book I wonder.

 

[dfnj]

Sdofvjkoivj may be god or it may not be god. At least it shares one feature with god: nobody knows what it is.

Do you believe in "time" ? Where is it? I can't hold "time" in my hand the same way you and I hold an "apple". When I hold an "apple" in my hand we both can look at it and say "apple".

"Time" is just like the word "God". Everyone swears it exists, it's universal, and it's eternal, but nobody knows where it is in reality. It only exists in reality because we say it does. Just like "God", "time" only exists in our use of human language.

The thing is "sdofvjkoivj" may be God or it may not be God as you say. However, "God" is different than every other word in our dictionary in the following sense. The word "God" represents every single thing that ever was or ever will be in thought and in reality. The word "God" represents every possible possibility realized or that could potentially be realized. The word "God" is a container word of every possible thought and experience that is possible.

So in this sense of the word "God" meaning the alpha and the omega, the word "God" is bigger and more meaningful the every other word in the dictionary. And just like with cloud algebra 1 plus 1 equals 1, the same is true with "sdofvjkoivj" and "God". If "sdofvjkoivj" represents the alpha and omega concept, then they are equal. There can be only one "God" type word in our dictionary. There is only one word needed but having two doesn't add anything to our semantics.

The reason the alpha-omega type word is needed is so the word "nothingness" has meaning in terms of a unity of opposites. Without "God", "nothingness" is meaningless.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

Without "God" and "Nothingness" we would have nothing meaningful representing the word "reality".

 

[Subduction Zone]

A theist said a similar thing.

You really should try to learn the difference between acceptance of God and belief in God.

All of this may just be semantics.

Yes, you are using a fallacious argument of semantics. The atheists here are not.

Let me explain your error to you. It is even worse than having an unsupported belief as you have. "Accepting God" involves a false belief that his existence has been proven somehow. It is a belief in a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hear it is in a book that you wont believe if you read it.
What is the name of the book I wonder.

Don't think of it as a human sacrifice. Think of it as failed open heart surgery

 

[Polymath257]

Do you believe in "time" ? Where is it? I can't hold "time" in my hand the same way you and I hold an "apple". When I hold an "apple" in my hand we both can look at it and say "apple".

We don't need to be able to hold an electron to know electrons exist. We don't need to be able to hold a sound wave to know that sound waves exist.

It is possible to measure time in a repeatable and public way. That is what is required to sensibly talk about the existence of time.

"Time" is just like the word "God". Everyone swears it exists, it's universal, and it's eternal, but nobody knows where it is in reality. It only exists in reality because we say it does. Just like "God", "time" only exists in our use of human language.

Give a way to reliably measure God. Otherwise, your analogy fails.

The thing is "sdofvjkoivj" may be God or it many God as you say. However, "God" is different than every other word in our dictionary in the following sense. The word "God" represents every single thing that ever was or ever will be in thought and in reality. The word "God" represents every possible possibility realized or that could potentially realized. The word "God" is a container word of every possible thought and experience that is possible.

So you are advocating a sort of pantheism?

So in this sense of the word "God" meaning the alpha and the omega, the word "God" is bigger and more meaningful the every other word in the dictionary. And just like with cloud algebra 1 plus 1 equals 1, the same is true with "sdofvjkoivj" and "God". If "sdofvjkoivj" represents the alpha and omega concept, then they are equal. There can be only one "God" type word in our dictionary. There is only one word needed but having two doesn't add anything to our semantics.

The reason the alpha-omega type word is needed is so the word "nothingness" has meaning in terms of a unity of opposites. Without "God", "nothingness" is meaningless.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

Well, I simply disagree with that philosophical position.

 

[Audie]

Do you believe in "time" ? Where is it? I can't hold "time" in my hand the same way you and I hold an "apple". When I hold an "apple" in my hand we both can look at it and say "apple".

"Time" is just like the word "God". Everyone swears it exists, it's universal, and it's eternal, but nobody knows where it is in reality. It only exists in reality because we say it does. Just like "God", "time" only exists in our use of human language.

The thing is "sdofvjkoivj" may be God or it many God as you say. However, "God" is different than every other word in our dictionary in the following sense. The word "God" represents every single thing that ever was or ever will be in thought and in reality. The word "God" represents every possible possibility realized or that could potentially realized. The word "God" is a container word of every possible thought and experience that is possible.

So in this sense of the word "God" meaning the alpha and the omega, the word "God" is bigger and more meaningful the every other word in the dictionary. And just like with cloud algebra 1 plus 1 equals 1, the same is true with "sdofvjkoivj" and "God". If "sdofvjkoivj" represents the alpha and omega concept, then they are equal. There can be only one "God" type word in our dictionary. There is only one word needed but having two doesn't add anything to our semantics.

The reason the alpha-omega type word is needed is so the word "nothingness" has meaning in terms of a unity of opposites. Without "God", "nothingness" is meaningless.

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

We recognize that no analogy is perfect, and that it
is tiresome to have someone point out the little flaws,
and avoid the truth in the analogy.

THAT BEING SAID

There is one huge fatal flaw in your comparison.

The effects of time are easily detected,
Time gets measured.

It DOES NOT only exist in human terms.

Ifn by the way ya wants to say that "god is everything"
then who needs the word god.

May as well say. "everything is blish". Ok, now what?

 

[Audie]

Don't think of it as a human sacrifice. Think of it as failed open heart surgery

Nope. I wants to know how it is an aspect or metaphor of the
Divine,as ALL religions were recently said to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that does NOT count as "technology".
And it sure is not "new".

No, but it's a pretty convincing argument for believers.
Consider....
By believing in God, God gives insight into one's beliefs being absolutely true.
They cannot be wrong. Disbelievers cannot be right.

 

[dfnj]

Belief is a choice only for those that think irrationally. Most nonbelievers do not believe due to a lack of evidence. In fact the logical response to unsupported claims is a lack of belief. You implied by your poor reasoning that your beliefs are a choice, and therefore irrational.

It is also a choice to believe it is irrational to have any beliefs that are a choice.

What is irrational is to think your own beliefs are perfectly accurate and perfectly complete. Nature has a funny habit of turning out to be much stranger than anything we could have ever imagined.

Essentially your argument is believing the way I do is rational, the way you believe is insane or irrational.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What about the 'no evidence for giant, invisible, white rabbit' crowd? Is that a belief or just a reasonable conclusion?

Wait.... was it .... a vorpal rabbit?

I thought the rabbit did snuff it, by way of the Artifact carried by Brother Maynard.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi UA nice to see you. Faith is a belief for which there is no evidence. I was applying to to those who believe there is no God and do not have any evidence that God does not exist.

I don't see how that makes sense.

I know God does not exist. It is not in my range of reality and if god Only exists by faith, the other side doesn't have objective evidence for its existence. They have faith. We know.

I'm not sure how we have faith that God does not exist.

Are you saying we are all agnostic?

Trying to make sense of this. I'm an atheist but I don't have faith God doesn't exist. The idea wasn't introduced as a truth I even put much thought in.

 

[Audie]

It is also a choice to believe it is irrational to have any beliefs that are a choice.

What is irrational is to think your own beliefs are perfectly accurate and perfectly complete. Nature has a funny habit of turning out to be much stranger than anything we could have ever imagined.

Essentially your argument is believing the way I do is rational, the way you believe is insane or irrational.

What is shabby and futile is to trot out a strawman.

As for the "choice to believe" THAT is the choice
to practice self deception.

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.”



“I dare say you haven’t had much practice,” said the queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”



–Alice in Wonderland

You are right of course about nature being stranger than imagined.

Imagining "God" as an explanation for anything is about as moldy-paleo
as you can get.

 

[Audie]

I don't see how that makes sense.

I know God does not exist. It is not in my range of reality and if god Only exists by faith, the other side doesn't have objective evidence for its existence. They have faith. We know.

I'm not sure how we have faith that God does not exist.

Are you saying we are all agnostic?

Trying to make sense of this. I'm an atheist but I don't have faith God doesn't exist. The idea wasn't introduced as a truth I even put much thought in.

You are looking at it the wrong way.
The whole "faith" thing for atheists or science
is a bit of equivocation for the purpose of trying
to drag everyone else down into the hole they are in.

Except of course they see it as that we are like them,
only we reject god and are lesser than they.

It has zero to do with logic, or proper word usage.

 

[icehorse]

Well this only shows you do not understand the scriptures IMO Ice. God loves us and is not willing that anyone should perish. That said you can lead a horse to water... God has provided salvation for all mankind as a free gift. It is our choice if we choose or refuse to accept it. I have peace in what I believe Ice, how about you?

These words do not hold up to logical scrutiny. I'm glad you have peace, but I worry that it comes at the cost of withholding your critical thinking faculties. As for me, I find secular humanism to be quite fulfilling, thank you

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Consider that there is evidence that we’re just not perceiving for the most part?.

So. God, deliberately and with malice, created people who cannot perceive? Yet it feels the need to punish us for failing to do what we cannot actually do?

Beat the puppy for failing to play the piano, why don't you?

Beat the cat bloody, for failing to understand Quantum Physics.

THAT is your description of "god", here.

Why not? If all descriptions of the Divine are metaphor, and if metaphors speak to what they illustrate, cannot all religious metaphors speak to the Divine from different perspectives?

The ... ahem... "metaphors" directly contradict the other .... "metaphors".

And that'd be fine-- except that proponents of "metaphor 1" are always going to war because proponents of "metaphor 2" think their metaphor is superior, and worse-- alternative "metaphors" should never have existed in the first place....

... meanwhile, the source of these "metaphors" sits back and watches the world burn...

As I said: Malice. Evil. Malevolent. Or simply Not At Home in the first place.

 

[dfnj]

We don't need to be able to hold an electron to know electrons exist. We don't need to be able to hold a sound wave to know that sound waves exist.
It is possible to measure time in a repeatable and public way. That is what is required to sensibly talk about the existence of time.
Give a way to reliably measure God. Otherwise, your analogy fails.
So you are advocating a sort of pantheism?
Well, I simply disagree with that philosophical position.

If you say you are measuring "time" then I believe you!

Here is the basis of my thinking about the word "time":

"There Is No Such Thing As Time"

Most theists say all of existence is proof for the existence of God. Reality is the measure. You just choose not to accept this as valid evidence.

I am not advocating pantheism. God is just a word. Here is my favorite way of thinking about how the word is defined:

"Dionysius describes the kataphatic or affirmative way to the divine as the "way of speech": that we can come to some understanding of the Transcendent by attributing all the perfections of the created order to God as its source. In this sense, we can say "God is Love", "God is Beauty", "God is Good". The apophatic or negative way stresses God's absolute transcendence and unknowability in such a way that we cannot say anything about the divine essence because God is so totally beyond being. The dual concept of the immanence and transcendence of God can help us to understand the simultaneous truth of both "ways" to God: at the same time as God is immanent, God is also transcendent. At the same time as God is knowable, God is also unknowable. God cannot be thought of as one or the other only."

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

God is more than just pantheism.

I'm okay with you disagreeing. I do not agree with your way of thinking either but I do respect it and see it as a valid point of view.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Sure they have. Not everyone agrees that the methods are valid — oddly enough, as with any new technology.

And the "deities" in question sit idly by as the world burns do to Detection Method #1 crowd going to war against Detection #3 crowd, who's "results" directly contradict Method #1.

If deities exist? They are viciously malevolent.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Have you ever heard of the saying out of sight out of mind? If someone does not believe and follow something why would they be thinking about it?

That may be true on indivudual cased and on a case by case basis. How would you explain 1/3 of the worlds population in Christianity alone? This is where your making monsters of your own making.

This should not be too difficult for you to understand. It's because 1/3 of the word's population were born to parents and communities who drilled it into their heads. If a child were born to the most Christian parents in the world tomorrow, and immediately adopted by Muslim parents -- I guarantee you that child would not grow up to be Christian. And if it were adopted by atheists who simply don't talk about gods, I guarantee you it wouldn't think it was having conversations with the Lord.

No you did not answer the OP and no you have no evidence that there is no God therefore by definition you too live by faith even if you do not see images of Jesus on your grilled cheese sandwiches.

And you have zero evidence that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn. And it is not a matter of "faith" for you that you don't believe in it. You don't believe in it because you weren't brainwashed into believing it.

As a matter of fact, there are an infinite number of things that you have zero evidence for, and yet you don't believe in most of them, either. In fact, there's an infinity of possibilities that you've never even thought of, let alone believe in.

You really do need to learn the difference between "faith" and coming to a rational conclusion based on evidence, or lack thereof. You are becoming a bit tedious in your perpetual insistence that because you have faith, therefore everybody else has to have it, too.