Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Subduction Zone]

Oh no. I thought you misunderstood. But now it is my place to apologise.

Have a super day.

Not necessary, but thank you. You have a great day too.

 

[sojourner]

Same with time. There exists an apparatus called watch that can measure time

But how do we know that the apparatus measures time correctly? As some have said here, “agreement” =/= “reality.” How do we know that time isn’t actually measured in “Plargs,” and that an atom doesn’t actually vibrate at some given frequency measured in this arbitrary thing called “seconds?”

Time can be measured and people agree about the measurement

No they don’t. Some of Indiana is on EST, some on CST. And some parts of Indiana refuse to go on DST. Phoenix doesn’t go on DST, while Flagstaff does. Is it 1:00 in Phoenix? Or is it really 2:00? How do we know? There’s no device to measure what is really 1:00.

How do you know that? Is there a consensus among theists for that characterization?

Is there consensus among people as to the meaning of the word “bank?”

 

[sojourner]

That was the point I was trying to get at with @3rdAngel : atheism isn't a religion, but if we would get the perks and special treatment that religions receive, I might be willing to let @3rdAngel call it one.

Just trying to insert a little whimsy...

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Right. It is evidence that things exist. It is NOT evidence that anything supernatural exists.

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.

The problem, as I see it, is that both kataphatic and apophatic have an underlying assumption that there is something to talk about. That is the point I have yet to see demonstrated. We can use our imaginations and *imagine* Gods or leprechauns, or pretty much anything else. That doesn't mean our imaginings have any reality.

So, in what sense is the question 'Does God exist' even make sense? How is it a sensible question if we can't even define what we are asking?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No. God created us with free will, and we simply don’t perceive..

Excuses, excuses. You fail to argue your case successfully. You don't even attempt to do so, but offer instead, and excuse that simply doesn't work.

That’s NOT my description of God. .

So you say. So you fail to show is true-- see above, wherein you show it IS NOT, in fact true-- this IS your version of "god".

You’re making an invalid assumption. .

Not really.

When did I ever say that God punishes us for not perceiving? Ever? God! I’m so sick and tired of you people assuming that just because I’m Christian, I must be a wacko fundigelical. .

100% of your "justification" for belief in the christian god? Is the immoral bible, which is very clear about what sort of god it describes.

If you don't believe the bible? Or worse-- if you cherry pick what you LIKE and ignore, or worse-- 100% rewrite what is there, to the exact opposite of what is actually written?

Hmmmm..... I find that ... Interesting. Not very honest, though.

Not always. I might say not in most cases..

9999 out of 1000 cases, yes. Even within the same Brand of Christian? Heck-- even at the SAME CHURCH? If there are, say, 100 members? You will find at least 100 different and distinct versions of "god"! Often? YOU WILL FIND FAR MORE THAN THE MEMBER COUNT.

Because people change what "god" means as they interact with different people!

That’s not the fault of the metaphors, themselves.
.

No-- it's the fault of this GOD if it exists! It proves beyond doubt, that IF god is real?

IT IS MALICIOUSLY EVIL.

A faulty conclusion that follows from a faulty premise.

So you keep saying-- so you fail to argue differently. In fact, using your arguments, all we have is God IS Maliciously, Capriciously, EVIL. Or simply not real.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Why are you talking about “deities?” That’s not where I’m at, at all. And why blame the metaphors for what people are doing? Case in point, I’m the one holding a metaphor, and you’re the one making wild assumptions and arguing about nothing. How is some ephemeral “deity” I’m not even talking about remotely responsible for that?

Either God, Deity or whatever, is GOOD? Or it is NOT GOOD. (or doesn't exist).

It cannot-- absolutely cannot be GOOD, due to the existence of Competing Religions.

Allowing False Religions to thrive? Is Maliciously Evil, or Maliciously Indifferent-- or?

Due to god being Absent.

Hint: Free Will has bupkiss to do with any of this carp. Did Jesus' Disciples have Free Will?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your snark is duly noted. This displayed attitude is PRECISELY why I don’t wish to waste my time. You don’t really care to know, you simply want to poke fun. I’m not playing that game.

Yet... christians like you DO play that game every day, in the way you vote, in the way you gleefully take TAX FUNDS from everyone, including non-christians, to prop up your Game.

Worse: You help keep Christian "Schools" going strong, who just the other day, show their True Colors by suspending a young African-American child because of his natural hair style.

Where is the Condemnation from Christians when such things happen on a daily basis?

No-- you are seriously Playing That Game, each and every day.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Though your argument is the same old entry level argument, its still better than the one you think you are defending.

I see you failed -- to 100% -- to make an attempt do actually ADDRESS my point.

I'll ask again: DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER?

Why or Why Not?

 

[sojourner]

OK, 'existence itself'. You identify that as 'divine'. I'm not sure why, as the word already has an established meaning and it isn't 'existence itself

Does it? It would seem that it doesn’t.

But there is something more bothersome here. 'Existence itself' just is. It has no personality. It isn't conscious. And it has no meaning (except what we give to it). It just is.

Your point? Why does Divinity have to have “personality?” Why must it be “conscious?” Aren’t you simply buying into the fundamentalist anthropomorphism of Divinity? Isn’t this just another straw man on your part? Why can’t Divinity be “consciousness” instead of “conscience?” Why must atheists automatically reply “nun-uh!” To any god-concept that differs from the Christian fundamentalist concept? Is it Divinity you have a problem with, or is it some one definition that you have a problem with?

To your last sentence: YES!!! Divinity carries the meaning we assign to it. That’s because it’s an internal thing with regard to perception.

At which point, I just have to ask, so what? We exist. Now what

Now we bring meaning to existence, and purpose, and yearning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was the point I was trying to get at with @3rdAngel : atheism isn't a religion, but if we would get the perks and special treatment that religions receive, I might be willing to let @3rdAngel call it one.

Sadly atheists do not see to be the sort that would fall for the equivalent of the Prosperity Gospel. Now how am I supposed to get my Lamborghini?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see you failed -- to 100% -- to make an attempt do actually ADDRESS my point.

I'll ask again: DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER?

Why or Why Not?

I do not think that he is making that argument. Have you perhaps conflated him with @3rdAngel ? I made that error.

 

[Polymath257]

But how do we know that the apparatus measures time correctly? As some have said here, “agreement” =/= “reality.” How do we know that time isn’t actually measured in “Plargs,” and that an atom doesn’t actually vibrate at some given frequency measured in this arbitrary thing called “seconds?”

Ultimately, atoms vibrate and *that* is what defines time. Yes, the designation of 'second' is arbitrary. But the term 'second' is defined in terms of those vibrations of atoms.

No they don’t. Some of Indiana is on EST, some on CST. And some parts of Indiana refuse to go on DST. Phoenix doesn’t go on DST, while Flagstaff does. Is it 1:00 in Phoenix? Or is it really 2:00? How do we know? There’s no device to measure what is really 1:00.

You are correct here. That aspect of time is arbitrary and conventional. And that is NOT what is meant by measuring time.

What people *will* agree on, though, is how much time elapses between two events (assuming they are at rest with respect to each other and the events).

Is there consensus among people as to the meaning of the word “bank?”

Well, you can have a river bank and a bank that stores money and gives out loans. NOBODY is prone to confuse the two. And for each, people pretty much do agree what constitutes a 'bank'.

But again, that is a matter of convention, not of reality. It is something *we* define to suit our desires and goals. But most of the universe is independent of our desires and goals.

 

[sojourner]

Yet... christians like you DO play that game every day, in the way you vote, in the way you gleefully take TAX FUNDS from everyone, including non-christians, to prop up your Game

Uh huh. I bet you never ever took a tax break. I paid over 6K in taxes last year that tRump unfairly stole from me. Your accusation fails.

Worse: You help keep Christian "Schools" going strong, who just the other day, show their True Colors by suspending a young African-American child because of his natural hair style

I have nothing to do with Christian schools. Fail again.

Where is the Condemnation from Christians when such things happen on a daily basis?

It’s out there; you’re just not looking.

No-- you are seriously Playing That Game, each and every day.

Nope. Not. You seriously need to get a new story, or else go bother the fundigelicals.

 

[Polymath257]

Does it? It would seem that it doesn’t.


Your point? Why does Divinity have to have “personality?” Why must it be “conscious?” Aren’t you simply buying into the fundamentalist anthropomorphism of Divinity? Isn’t this just another straw man on your part? Why can’t Divinity be “consciousness” instead of “conscience?” Why must atheists automatically reply “nun-uh!” To any god-concept that differs from the Christian fundamentalist concept? Is it Divinity you have a problem with, or is it some one definition that you have a problem with?

To your last sentence: YES!!! Divinity carries the meaning we assign to it. That’s because it’s an internal thing with regard to perception.

OK, so I will study it more when I get around to studying human psychology in more depth. Other than that, it has no bearing on anything I can see as useful or meaningful.

Now we bring meaning to existence, and purpose, and yearning.

Yep. That's what conscious beings do.

 

[sojourner]

Ultimately, atoms vibrate and *that* is what defines time. Yes, the designation of 'second' is arbitrary. But the term 'second' is defined in terms of those vibrations of atoms

Only because that’s how we designate it.

What people *will* agree on, though, is how much time elapses between two events (assuming they are at rest with respect to each other and the events

That’s an assumption, though, that isn’t always true.

But again, that is a matter of convention, not of reality

Bingo! Any theology is a convention.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Some are vorpal, even while they gyre and gimble all mimsy.

There is a lot of controversy among giant, invisible white rabbits about the validity of the story of Brother Maynard. Some believe it is real, while others dismiss it for lack of evidence. It is difficult to question them as they are often late for very important dates.

Late? That's what they get for counting all the way to Five.

 

[Polymath257]

Is it Divinity you have a problem with, or is it some one definition that you have a problem with?
.

I have a problem with anything supernatural. If your idea of divinity doesn't include such, and you agree it is a psychological tool, then I have no issue.

 

[Polymath257]

Bingo! Any theology is a convention.

In which case, it is not reality.

Reality is that which is true no matter what the convention or whether you disagree.

 

[sojourner]

OK, so I will study it more when I get around to studying human psychology in more depth. Other than that, it has no bearing on anything I can see as useful or meaningful

Fair enough. It doesn’t appear useful to you. I’m not asking that it does. If it carries no meaning for you, that’s your bag. More power to ya! But it does appear useful to me. Please don’t make the same mistake that you accuse evangelicals of making in insisting that your meaning-making is the only valid one.

Yep. That's what conscious beings do

And some do it one way, some another.

 

[sojourner]

I have a problem with anything supernatural. If your idea of divinity doesn't include such, and you agree it is a psychological tool, then I have no issue.

I think Divinity is eminently natural.