To the Anti-Religious

[PureX]

Or, over here in reality, it's called being honest. Most theists don't believe 100% in their god all the time. I could say "God does not exist no matter what, and I am 100% sure of that", but that would not be very reasonable. Instead, many atheists say "I don't believe there is a god, but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that I'm wrong". It's called being reasonable and honest with yourself. I know it's probably a hard concept for you to follow.

No, that's called BSing yourself, and others.

If you don't know, then you don't know. Being honest then means stating that you don't know right up front, and then if you want to add your half-baked opinions to that you can say; "but I think or partly believe this or that to be so". But this is not what we're seeing atheists saying at all. What we see them post around here is "I don't believe God exists". They only admit to not knowing when pressed. And they certainly don't behave or imply that their belief that God does not exist is not fully entrenched in their minds and hearts.

 

[themadhair]

I don’t believe god exists. I also believe that the ‘dynamic’ god concept you have attempted to present does not exist (note that this sentence is stronger than the first).

Are you really going to call me a liar on this?

 

[richardlowellt]

They only admit to not knowing when pressed. And they certainly don't behave or imply that their belief that God does not exist is not fully entrenched in their minds and hearts.

[/QUOTE]I don't know who you have been talking to, but I for one do not believe god, and when "pressed" will still tell you there is no god, and for me the concept of a non-existent god IS entrenched in my mind and heart.

 

[Commoner]

No, that's called BSing yourself, and others.

If you don't know, then you don't know. Being honest then means stating that you don't know right up front, and then if you want to add your half-baked opinions to that you can say; "but I think or partly believe this or that to be so". But this is not what we're seeing atheists saying at all. What we see them post around here is "I don't believe God exists". They only admit to not knowing when pressed. And they certainly don't behave or imply that their belief that God does not exist is not fully entrenched in their minds and hearts.

I usually don't believe in things that I can't establish to be true. There's no conflict between "I don't know" and "I don't believe".

 

[PureX]

I don’t believe god exists. I also believe that the ‘dynamic’ god concept you have attempted to present does not exist (note that this sentence is stronger than the first).

Are you really going to call me a liar on this?

Yes, because you are deliberately leaving out the fact that you have already admitted that you have no way of knowing if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be if God does exist. People who deliberately mislead others by telling them half truths are liars.

The honest way of saying this would be to say up front that you don't know if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be if God does exist, but that you have chosen to believe that God does not exist. (My idea of God would be implied by this last statement.)

What's so difficult about that?

When people ask me this question, I say that I don't know if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be, but that I have chosen to believe that a loving and forgiving God does exist, because I find that doing so adds value to my life. I see no need to trick people, or hide what I don't know.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No, that's called BSing yourself, and others.

If you don't know, then you don't know. Being honest then means stating that you don't know right up front, and then if you want to add your half-baked opinions to that you can say; "but I think or partly believe this or that to be so". But this is not what we're seeing atheists saying at all. What we see them post around here is "I don't believe God exists". They only admit to not knowing when pressed. And they certainly don't behave or imply that their belief that God does not exist is not fully entrenched in their minds and hearts.

Your consistent mischaracterization of atheists and atheism is quite tiresome.

 

[PureX]

I usually don't believe in things that I can't establish to be true. There's no conflict between "I don't know" and "I don't believe".

"I don't know" and "I don't believe" are two very different statements. Pretending they aren't is dishonest.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yes, because you are deliberately leaving out the fact that you have already admitted that you have no way of knowing if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be if God does exist. People who deliberately mislead others by telling them half truths are liars.

The honest way of saying this would be to say up front that you don't know if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be if God does exist, but that you have chosen to believe that God does not exist. (My idea of God would be implied by this last statement.)

What's so difficult about that?

When people ask me this question, I say that I don't know if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be, but that I have chosen to believe that a loving and forgiving God does exist, because I find that doing so adds value to my life. I see no need to trick people, or hide what I don't know.

So we have no idea if God exists and if he does, what his nature is. And here you are, attempting to tell us that a God exists. In fact, you started a thread where you wanted to "present the evidence", which you still haven't done.

What is this source of information on God that you can access, but not us? And furthermore, how do you know it is accurate?

 

[Commoner]

"I don't know" and "I don't believe" are two very different statements. Pretending they aren't is dishonest.

They are different - they deal with different categories. But there's no conflict between them.

 

[PureX]

Your consistent mischaracterization of atheists and atheism is quite tiresome.

Well, you atheist's persistent word games and dishonesty is quite tiresome, too. So let's all just start being honest, then.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Well, you atheist's persistent word games and dishonesty is quite tiresome, too. So let's all just start being honest, then.

Examples?

 

[PureX]

So we have no idea if God exists and if he does, what his nature is. And here you are, attempting to tell us that a God exists. In fact, you started a thread where you wanted to "present the evidence", which you still haven't done.

What is this source of information on God that you can access, but not us? And furthermore, how do you know it is accurate?

First, I have never stated that I know God exists, nor have I ever attempted to tell anyone else that God exists. I've stated that there is evidence to support the theory that God actually exists (apart from our ideas of God) and I have presented it. I have not claimed any source of information on God that I can access, but that you can't. So your whole above post is a pack lies that you've made up about me, intended to make me look bad. Doesn't this bother you? Doesn't honesty or accuracy mean anything to you?

 

[PureX]

I don't know who you have been talking to, but I for one do not believe god, and when "pressed" will still tell you there is no god, and for me the concept of a non-existent god IS entrenched in my mind and heart.

You are a recent arrival to this thread, and I applaud your honesty.

 

[themadhair]

I don’t believe god exists. I also believe that the ‘dynamic’ god concept you have attempted to present does not exist (note that this sentence is stronger than the first).

Are you really going to call me a liar on this?

Yes, because you are deliberately leaving out the fact that you have already admitted that you have no way of knowing if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be if God does exist. People who deliberately mislead others by telling them half truths are liars.

I see you have done one of your old tricks again PureX. Quite dishonest of you. Pay attention now.

See how I used the phrase “I don’t believe god exists” when referring to a general non-specified god. Why do I refer to to in this way? Could it be that it is simply not possible for me to believe in a concept that is unspecified, vague and without any workable defintion?
Note how I outright reject your god-concept, with no qualms, because (despite your bs concept of ‘dynamic&#8217 I know sufficient information to make the determination that it is bull?

Do you see the difference between those two concepts? Do you see how referring to god in an unspecified, vague and non-workable way completely alters the question? You could insert the word ‘gidsjgfdijd’ for all the meaning the term conveys when you refuse to specify it.

The honest way of saying this would be to say up front that you don't know if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be if God does exist, but that you have chosen to believe that God does not exist.

There are two separate criteria here (and I’m beginning to suspect that you are conflating them on purpose after repeatedly being called on this):

1) God is reasonably specified.
All such god-concepts I have presented with have not stacked up and I have rejected them as being bull
2) God is not reasonably specified.
One cannot take a position on a concept if one doesn’t know what the concept is. Hence why, just like above, you cannot take a position of believing it. Hence I don’t believe ‘god’ exists, where ‘god’ is not sufficiently defined.

Are you going to display some of this honesty you are championing here PureX by admitting that you have deliberated conflated these two scenarios?

When people ask me this question, I say that I don't know if God exists or not, or what God's nature might be, but that I have chosen to believe that a loving and forgiving God does exist, because I find that doing so adds value to my life.

You cannot claim not to know the nature of a concept while claiming that concept adds value to your life. This is a straight up contradiction in terms.

I see no need to trick people, or hide what I don't know.

It is interesting that you complain about the position others hold on a concept, when your own idea of that concept isn’t even logically consistent. As the expression goes, get your own house in order before trying to lecture others on what their opinion is.

 

[Magic Man]

No, that's called BSing yourself, and others.

If you don't know, then you don't know. Being honest then means stating that you don't know right up front, and then if you want to add your half-baked opinions to that you can say; "but I think or partly believe this or that to be so". But this is not what we're seeing atheists saying at all. What we see them post around here is "I don't believe God exists". They only admit to not knowing when pressed. And they certainly don't behave or imply that their belief that God does not exist is not fully entrenched in their minds and hearts.

Nope, and you continuing to claim this isn't going to make it any more true. I explained why it's being honest. I'm sorry if you can't accept that.

This is very simple. No one knows with 100% certainty. Some of us are honest and admit that while saying that one option seems highly, highly unlikely. Of course, their belief that god does not exist is fully entrenched in their minds (or at least some of their minds). You're missing the point. When you discuss God with most atheists, they will tend to argue that god doesn't exist or at least that there is no proof of god existing. If you get in-depth with them, they'll tell you that they're not positive that no gods exist, but they don't believe they do exist.

 

[themadhair]

<PureX>

Do believe that fgfdgrtres exist?

No, I do not believe that fgfdgrtres exist because I don’t even know what you mean by that?

You are being dishonest and twisting words and….

</PureX>

 

[Vile Atheist]

First, I have never stated that I know God exists, nor have I ever attempted to tell anyone else that God exists. I've stated that there is evidence to support the theory that God actually exists (apart from our ideas of God) and I have presented it. I have not claimed any source of information on God that I can access, but that you can't. So your whole above post is a pack lies that you've made up about me, intended to make me look bad. Doesn't this bother you? Doesn't honesty or accuracy mean anything to you?

It's difficult to ascertain what you state because you change it everyday. For example:

That's because God is not an objective thing. But neither is love or pain or embarrassment or longing, yet most of us have experienced these concepts as part of our reality.

What makes "God" any less real than a "broken heart"?

So how is the idea of "God" any less objective than the idea of a chair, or a rock?

You've attempted to present evidence for God, which implies that you support the notion God exists. Or you wouldn't be wasting your breath with atheists whom you constantly complain "insult" you. What would be the point of creating a thread called "Let's present the evidence", if you also maintain that we cannot know anything about God?

If you maintain we cannot know anything about God, then what was the point of the "Let's Present the Evidence" thread? If we cannot know anything about God, there would be no evidence. And by extension, your beliefs would be unsubstantiated.

If you maintain we CAN know some things about God, then you have access to information that atheists like me are not privy to. And since I'm pretty interested in universal truths, could you pretty please share it with us?

Not to mention the "Religion: Taoist/Christian" right under your username would indicate that you accept a deity. What else would be the point of "presenting "evidence"" and wasting so much time and effort trying to convince atheists of your ideas, if your aim is not to attempt to demonstrate God exists?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

PureX, what is this evidence you speak of concerning god, maybe it would appropriate to start up a thread in which you present the evidence for god, oh..wait...

In anycase There is no conflict bewtween "I don't know" and "I don't believe" they are two separate categories. An atheist states that they don't believe; an agnostic states that they don't know, an agnostic-atheist (whih I'm pretty sure is the most common type of atheist out there) states that they don't know and they don't believe. A gnostic atheist claims to know that there is no god and that they don't believe in him/ her/ it. You still seem to be unable to distinguish between the three.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It's difficult to ascertain what you state because you change it everyday. For example:





You've attempted to present evidence for God, which implies that you support the notion God exists. Or you wouldn't be wasting your breath with atheists whom you constantly complain "insult" you. What would be the point of creating a thread called "Let's present the evidence", if you also maintain that we cannot know anything about God?

If you maintain we cannot know anything about God, then what was the point of the "Let's Present the Evidence" thread? If we cannot know anything about God, there would be no evidence. And by extension, your beliefs would be unsubstantiated.

If you maintain we CAN know some things about God, then you have access to information that atheists like me are not privy to. And since I'm pretty interested in universal truths, could you pretty please share it with us?

Not to mention the "Religion: Taoist/Christian" right under your username would indicate that you accept a deity. What else would be the point of "presenting "evidence"" and wasting so much time and effort trying to convince atheists of your ideas, if your aim is not to attempt to demonstrate God exists?

Useless, PureX appears to have no idea what he's saying, he's been inconsistent and dishonest throughout the whole site.

 

[PureX]

I see you have done one of your old tricks again PureX. Quite dishonest of you. Pay attention now.

That's it. Start right off with the condescension, so you can pretend you're superior to me...

Now throw in the word games and sophistry ...

See how I used the phrase &#8220;I don&#8217;t believe god exists&#8221; when referring to a general non-specified god. Why do I refer to to in this way? Could it be that it is simply not possible for me to believe in a concept that is unspecified, vague and without any workable defintion?

Throw a couple more insults in there, to maintain that air of superiority...

Note how I outright reject your god-concept, with no qualms, because (despite your bs concept of &#8216;dynamic&#8217 I know sufficient information to make the determination that it is bull?

There they are. Now more sophistry ...

Do you see the difference between those two concepts? Do you see how referring to god in an unspecified, vague and non-workable way completely alters the question? You could insert the word &#8216;gidsjgfdijd&#8217; for all the meaning the term conveys when you refuse to specify it.

What I see is that you're frustrated because you can't find a way to take pot shots at an idea that isn't a lumbering, one-dimensional, bull's-eye.

There are two separate criteria here (and I&#8217;m beginning to suspect that you are conflating them on purpose after repeatedly being called on this):

1) God is reasonably specified.
All such god-concepts I have presented with have not stacked up and I have rejected them as being bull
2) God is not reasonably specified.
One cannot take a position on a concept if one doesn&#8217;t know what the concept is. Hence why, just like above, you cannot take a position of believing it. Hence I don&#8217;t believe &#8216;god&#8217; exists, where &#8216;god&#8217; is not sufficiently defined.

Are you going to display some of this honesty you are championing here PureX by admitting that you have deliberated conflated these two scenarios?

The problem is that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. Imagine a really beautiful and great piece of music. And then imagine trying to define WHY it's a really beautiful and great piece of music. You can't do it. Music is dynamic. It's doesn't just sit there waiting for you to figure it out. In fact, there really isn't going to be any way for you to "figure it out" because music is something that happens to you. It's about a relationship between sound and your body, and sound and your mind. And each piece of music will be different, and will have a different effect. So is each of our bodies, and so will be the individual effect. You aren't going to be able to prove a good piece of music using science. You aren't even going to be able to do it using logic, or reason, and we aren't all going to agree on what is a great piece of music. Yet we have virtually all experienced great music.

This is how it is with the idea of "God". God is like great music. It's impossible to define, and impossible to quantify, yet it changes your life for the better. We can only experience it's effects and we aren't all going to agree on what that experience is or how it effected us. So you aren't going to be able to take your usual easy pot shots at such a dynamic concept. And blaming and accusing me for this is stupid. The concept of "God" doesn't belong to me, or to anyone. We each have our own. If yours didn't work for you, I'm sorry, but mine does work for me. Maybe you should try adopting a different one.

You cannot claim not to know the nature of a concept while claiming that concept adds value to your life. This is a straight up contradiction in terms.

Why, just because you say so?

It is interesting that you complain about the position others hold on a concept, when your own idea of that concept isn&#8217;t even logically consistent. As the expression goes, get your own house in order before trying to lecture others on what their opinion is.

God, like great music, and great art are not logically consistent. You can't capture them in a test tube. And you aren't going to lessen their power by ******* and whining like a three year old that they "aren't real". They are real as hell to everyone that experiences them. The experience is real, and is usually good, and can sometimes be life-changing. Whine all you want, but you ain't gonna make the reality of a God-experience go away. And your attempts to belittle it only work for you and yours.