You say that there is a god...

[Audie]

I'd say any belief by faith can lead to the development of a confirmation bias when the belief can be contradicted with reason and evidence, and not limited to theistic faith. Climate, vaccine, and election deniers also do the same. Maybe you've seen MAGA member interviewed about Trump. They don't see what you and I see even when you show them.

But religion seems to be the king. How many times have you read a theist tell you or any other atheist that they have claimed gods don't exist? A few do that - strong or gnostic atheists - but most simply say that they are agnostic about gods, and this to NEVER be heard, understood, and assimilated.

When has one who makes that mistake of transforming "I don't believe in gods" into "there are no gods" ever stopped making it? When has one who made that mistake said, "Oh, so that's what you believe - not that gods don't exist but that you don't have cause to believe that they do, so you take no stand on that." Never in my experience.

I think it's the other way around. Their religious beliefs are the cause of it. When one embraces a religious belief and then encounters evidence to the contrary, he often erects a confirmation bias to defend his belief from contradictory argument and evidence that does the transforming for him.

And it's not confined to the religious. Anybody willing to believe a wrong belief by faith is prone to confirmation bias that limits what he sees. This can be climate change denial, Covid vaccine efficacy denial, and election integrity denial.

I've been wondering two things about you for a while.

First, did you used to post as River Tam on Topix before it went defunct? She was a lot like you - a young Asian woman and independent thinker with a similar assertive demeanor.

Second, I wrote a joke that you might find offensive or maybe funny. Asking for permission to share. It begins, "My Asian girlfriend came over to make us dinner followed by passionate love making and sleep." The joke makes reference to a cliche about Chinese food and ends with what I consider a clever and funny pun. Shall I share it with you, or would you prefer I didn't?

I know. Can't educate 'em out of an idee fixee.

River Tam. Topic.

No, that's not me.

You might have run across Taikoo somewhere though.

Have at it with the joke. I'd like to hear it!

 

[dybmh]

I'd say any belief by faith can lead to the development of a confirmation bias when the belief can be contradicted with reason and evidence

Which is precisely what you do. Wow! Your faith and beliefs are contradicted by reason and evidence. Kind of like how you claimed to be moraly excellent, but you can't seem to be honest about what other people say and do.

I know. Can't educate 'em out of an idee fixee.

Ignorance and arrogance. What a perfect pair you are.

 

[F1fan]

Prove it.

You’re asking me to prove a negative, to prove atheists don’t have gods? You made the claim that atheists have gods. It’s an absurdity of language.

A god is anything that has the power to create destory or inspire. If you're claiming that atheists are uninspired by anything, that's an interesting claim.

So by your personal definition a squirrel is a god when it destroys parts of your house. A dog or cat is a god when it knocks over a lamp. Cancer is a god as it kills healthy cells. A beaver is a god as it creates a dam. A bird cresting a nest. My ex-girlfriends Elizabeth and Alicia are gods because they inspired songs I wrote.

Notice these gods are all real things. They aren’t ideas in minds like the symbols of religion. So not only is your definition of god material it is in direct contradiction to the classic definitions that we use in these debates.

I don’t accept your definition of a god since it is problematic and only creates confusion. It includes squirrels and cancer, who would ever think they are gods? Definitions are used for clarity and comprehension and your version doesn’t contribute anything.

 

[dybmh]

You’re asking me to prove a negative, to prove atheists don’t have gods? You made the claim that atheists have gods. It’s an absurdity of language.

You are ignoring the defintion of "gods".

Atheists don’t have gods. There are no gods to serve. I’m not sure why you need to be incorrect about this.

Prove it. A god is anything that has the power to create destory or inspire. If you're claiming that atheists are uninspired by anything, that's an interesting claim.

When the defintion of "god" is applied your claim is: "Atheists don't have inspiration" "There is no inspiration to be inspired by."

Is that your claim? It's a pretty interesting claim.

So by your personal definition a squirrel is a god when it destroys parts of your house. A dog or cat is a god when it knocks over a lamp. Cancer is a god as it kills healthy cells. A beaver is a god as it creates a dam. A bird cresting a nest. My ex-girlfriends Elizabeth and Alicia are gods because they inspired songs I wrote.

Yes... if they are inspiring. And it depends on what it is about them that is inspiring. You are surrounded by gods, you are influenced by them. They influence you, and manipulate you. They are possibly the most powerful force on the planet. Because they influence action, sometimes extreme actions.

Notice these gods are all real things. They aren’t ideas in minds like the symbols of religion. So not only is your definition of god material it is in direct contradiction to the classic definitions that we use in these debates.

You forgot "inspiration". Not just create or destroy... inspire is arguably the most important part.

And .... Sooooo what? Who cares what is the classic defintion that atheists choose? Why in the world would an atheist be an authority on something they deny? Atheists choose a definition for the purpose of denying it. Just like any other science denier. I show you a god, I show you multiple gods, and you deny it.

I don’t accept your definition of a god since it is problematic and only creates confusion. It includes squirrels and cancer, who would ever think they are gods? Definitions are used for clarity and comprehension and your version doesn’t contribute anything.

Hee. That's what all atheists do. It is a general category like emotions. There's nothing confusing about it. The fact it is so simple and you choose to deny it is proof of the god you serve.

Those things can all be gods, they can be inspiring. Not all gods are the same in their capability to impact a person's life. Your god, is very potent. See how quickly you denied its influence.

You see, you want to be an atheist. That's pretty much all there is to it. It's just a belief, no different than any other belief. You don't like the idea of being grouped in with the god believers. You think we're stupid, you blame us for the politcal situation in America. None of it is about god or gods. It's a choice, based on desire and ego.

multiple gods operate in you ALL day everyday, morning noon and night. At every second of everyday. They influence you, manipulate you. And your denial of them makes it much much easier to do so.

The simple truth is, you probably don't actually deny them. There is no such thing as an atheist. All of you believe in gods unless you're in a coma or have some sort of serious mental condition. You just don't want to grouped in with people whom you despise. And it's fine. I understand. I don't judge you. I just see this great big void. You're not the void. But it's deeply a part of who you choose to be.

And the truth is, it does make you and people like you dangerous. You can easily be manipulated. The conservatives talk about liberal media bias. They're not wrong. Ya'all are like lap dogs sometimes. All that's needed is an opportunity to feel elite, and you're like a moth to a flame.

 

[lukethethird]

You are ignoring the defintion of "gods".



Prove it. A god is anything that has the power to create destory or inspire. If you're claiming that atheists are uninspired by anything, that's an interesting claim.

When the defintion of "god" is applied your claim is: "Atheists don't have inspiration" "There is no inspiration to be inspired by."

Is that your claim? It's a pretty interesting claim.




Yes... if they are inspiring. And it depends on what it is about them that is inspiring. You are surrounded by gods, you are influenced by them. They influence you, and manipulate you. They are possibly the most powerful force on the planet. Because they influence action, sometimes extreme actions.



You forgot "inspiration". Not just create or destroy... inspire is arguably the most important part.

And .... Sooooo what? Who cares what is the classic defintion that atheists choose? Why in the world would an atheist be an authority on something they deny? Atheists choose a definition for the purpose of denying it. Just like any other science denier. I show you a god, I show you multiple gods, and you deny it.



Hee. That's what all atheists do. It is a general category like emotions. There's nothing confusing about it. The fact it is so simple and you choose to deny it is proof of the god you serve.

Those things can all be gods, they can be inspiring. Not all gods are the same in their capability to impact a person's life. Your god, is very potent. See how quickly you denied its influence.

You see, you want to be an atheist. That's pretty much all there is to it. It's just a belief, no different than any other belief. You don't like the idea of being grouped in with the god believers. You think we're stupid, you blame us for the politcal situation in America. None of it is about god or gods. It's a choice, based on desire and ego.

multiple gods operate in you ALL day everyday, morning noon and night. At every second of everyday. They influence you, manipulate you. And your denial of them makes it much much easier to do so.

The simple truth is, you probably don't actually deny them. There is no such thing as an atheist. All of you believe in gods unless you're in a coma or have some sort of serious mental condition. You just don't want to grouped in with people whom you despise. And it's fine. I understand. I don't judge you. I just see this great big void. You're not the void. But it's deeply a part of who you choose to be.

And the truth is, it does make you and people like you dangerous. You can easily be manipulated. The conservatives talk about liberal media bias. They're not wrong. Ya'all are like lap dogs sometimes. All that's needed is an opportunity to feel elite, and you're like a moth to a flame.

Yes, yes, it's all true, I would suggest you get plenty of rest, you have a big day tomorrow, lots to do, besides, you already blew one gasket today.

 

[blü 2]

Premise 1: The atheist does not know how to define a god.

For the record, I'm an igtheist.

I've never seen a definition of a real god, one with objective existence, from anyone, believer or nonbeliever. All the gods seem to be defined by imaginary qualities like omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, blah blah.

If you're saying 'God' only exists as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain, then I'll readily agree with you, though of course the number of such gods is probably in the billions.

If you're saying 'God' exists in reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, then please define this god so that if we happen on a real suspect, we can determine whether [it]'s God or not.

And it'll be useful if you can provide us with a definition of 'godness', the quality a real god will have and a real superscientist who can create universes, raise the dead &c will lack. It might be a bad mistake to get the two kinds confused.

 

[dybmh]

For the record, I'm an igtheist.

I've never seen a definition of a real god, one with objective existence, from anyone, believer or nonbeliever. All the gods seem to be defined by imaginary qualities like omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, blah blah.

If you're saying 'God' only exists as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain, then I'll readily agree with you, though of course the number of such gods is probably in the billions.

If you're saying 'God' exists in reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, then please define this god so that if we happen on a real suspect, we can determine whether [it]'s God or not.

And it'll be useful if you can provide us with a definition of 'godness', the quality a real god will have and a real superscientist who can create universes, raise the dead &c will lack. It might be a bad mistake to get the two kinds confused.

No prob, First hopefully you notice that I am using lowercase "g" god in my assertions? Not capital "G" God. I am talking about a god.

A god is anything which can create destroy and inspire. That's it. Super simple. It's a very broad definition, which is an important part of what I'm claiming.

The evidence I brought were pictures of the angry mob of the Jan 6th riots at our capital here in America. I claim there are multiple gods operating there, deception, ignorance, rage, jealousy, duty, etc...

Yes all of them have physical manifestations, although putting any of them in a box and measuring them in a conventional manner would not be possible.

When you ask whether it exists outside the brain, I'm not sure how to answer that to be honest. The gods involved in the Jan 6th riots all exist in bodies brains hearts (metaphorically), but the effect that these gods have is massive and measurable and external. That's what makes them potent and important to acknowledge.

Does that answer your questions, basically?

Here's the rest of my claim, in case you wish to comment/criticise/question, whatever.

Premise 1: The atheist does not know how to define a god.
Conclusion 1: They will not know if they are making a god claim.

Premise 2: The definition of god is a general category and includes many things.
Premise 3: The probability that an atheist will make a god claim increases depending on the number of gods.
Conclusion 2: If the number of gods is infinite it is impossible not to make god claims.

Premise 4: One of the gods included in the general category is pure negation. It has unique properties.
Premise 5: One of the unique properties is that it forces defintions of gods into a narrow band prohibitting it's own detection.

Conclusion 3: Denial of this god is a making a god claim because of the unique properties of this god.
Conclusion 4: All atheists make god claims when they identify as atheist per the defintion of a god.

 

[blü 2]

No prob, First hopefully you notice that I am using lowercase "g" god in my assertions? Not capital "G" God. I am talking about a god.

A god is anything which can create destroy and inspire. That's it. Super simple. It's a very broad definition, which is an important part of what I'm claiming.

So a god is an idea, a passion felt in common, as with a mob, or perhaps a political rally, or a major rock concert, sort of thing?

Though it must contain a negative element, a potential to attack and destroy what I might call positive human values?

I'd be interested to get the point clear with you, but I have to say you've taken me a long long way from most concepts of a god with which I'm familiar. There might be some overlap with eg Euripides' play The Bacchae, in which [spoiler alert] Agaue and her women, in Bacchic ecstasy/frenzy, tear apart her son Pentheus, king of Thebes, who has offended the god Dionysos. However, in my experience, that's definitely fringe, not mainstream, when gods are discussed.

And for balance, may I also ask you where the Abrahamic god, and Krishna, and Athena, and the Great Spirit (&c) fit on this map?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have at it with the joke. I'd like to hear it!

My Asian girlfriend came over to make us dinner followed by passionate love making and sleep. I awakened an hour later with a craving for more, unsure whether it was for the twice-cooked pork or the twice-porked cook.

 

[blü 2]

My Asian girlfriend came over to make us dinner followed by passionate love making and sleep. I awakened an hour later with a craving for more, unsure whether it was for the twice-cooked pork or the twice-porked cook.

As Claude Rains says in Casablanca, I'm shocked, shocked!

 

[Audie]

My Asian girlfriend came over to make us dinner followed by passionate love making and sleep. I awakened an hour later with a craving for more, unsure whether it was for the twice-cooked pork or the twice-porked cook.

You might not want to tell her that.

 

[F1fan]

You are ignoring the defintion of "gods".

Wrong, I am using the accepted definitions. I have rejected your special definition which is overly broad and unuseful.

Prove it. A god is anything that has the power to create destory or inspire.

This isn't a defnition I find anywhere in dictionaries. This is certainly something believers might assume.

If you're claiming that atheists are uninspired by anything, that's an interesting claim.

I claimed no such thing.

When the defintion of "god" is applied your claim is: "Atheists don't have inspiration" "There is no inspiration to be inspired by."

You aren't using language properly nor honestly. You are trying to create definition that force 'some belief in god' onto atheists that they don't actually hold. I suggest you use the common definitions of god so that you can create a valid argument. Of course, atheists don't believe in gods, so that wouldn't work either.

Is that your claim? It's a pretty interesting claim.

I made no such claim.

Yes... if they are inspiring. And it depends on what it is about them that is inspiring. You are surrounded by gods, you are influenced by them. They influence you, and manipulate you. They are possibly the most powerful force on the planet. Because they influence action, sometimes extreme actions.

This isn't an accurate description. I don't see how it is rational to assume atheists will consider any inspiration as a god. Youbelieving this all devends on the defintion you created, which is rejected by me, and others.

You forgot "inspiration". Not just create or destroy... inspire is arguably the most important part.

False, I mentioned my two ex-girlfriends that inspired songs.

And .... Sooooo what? Who cares what is the classic defintion that atheists choose?

Everyone except you. Use correct definitions if you want to make valid arguments. Making up definitions is invalid.

Why in the world would an atheist be an authority on something they deny? Atheists choose a definition for the purpose of denying it. Just like any other science denier. I show you a god, I show you multiple gods, and you deny it.

More elaborate falsehoods. Atheists on this forum, and likely elsewhere, use the common definitions. Only you have a problem with this. Could it be that the authentic definitions don't allow you to win in your prejudicial angst against those who aren't convinced gods exist?

Hee. That's what all atheists do. It is a general category like emotions. There's nothing confusing about it. The fact it is so simple and you choose to deny it is proof of the god you serve.

Those things can all be gods, they can be inspiring. Not all gods are the same in their capability to impact a person's life. Your god, is very potent. See how quickly you denied its influence.

You see, you want to be an atheist. That's pretty much all there is to it. It's just a belief, no different than any other belief. You don't like the idea of being grouped in with the god believers. You think we're stupid, you blame us for the politcal situation in America. None of it is about god or gods. It's a choice, based on desire and ego.

multiple gods operate in you ALL day everyday, morning noon and night. At every second of everyday. They influence you, manipulate you. And your denial of them makes it much much easier to do so.

The simple truth is, you probably don't actually deny them. There is no such thing as an atheist. All of you believe in gods unless you're in a coma or have some sort of serious mental condition. You just don't want to grouped in with people whom you despise. And it's fine. I understand. I don't judge you. I just see this great big void. You're not the void. But it's deeply a part of who you choose to be.

And the truth is, it does make you and people like you dangerous. You can easily be manipulated. The conservatives talk about liberal media bias. They're not wrong. Ya'all are like lap dogs sometimes. All that's needed is an opportunity to feel elite, and you're like a moth to a flame.

You don't make an effort to defend your special definition, and only write this is a set of untrue claims. There is no point in trying to correct your biased errors, they are so absurd. You offer no facts, no coherent explanation. This list tells us about you, not what atheists are.

 

[F1fan]

For the record, I'm an igtheist.

I've never seen a definition of a real god, one with objective existence, from anyone, believer or nonbeliever. All the gods seem to be defined by imaginary qualities like omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, blah blah.

If you're saying 'God' only exists as a concept / thing imagined in an individual brain, then I'll readily agree with you, though of course the number of such gods is probably in the billions.

If you're saying 'God' exists in reality, the world external to the self which we know about through our senses, then please define this god so that if we happen on a real suspect, we can determine whether [it]'s God or not.

And it'll be useful if you can provide us with a definition of 'godness', the quality a real god will have and a real superscientist who can create universes, raise the dead &c will lack. It might be a bad mistake to get the two kinds confused.

He did define "god" as anything "with the power to destroy, create, or inspire", (he dropped 'power' in his definition to you) which I pointed out includes squirrels, cancer, beavers, and ex-girlfriends. In the examples he gave you these "gods" were abstractions, not material objects. That's quite a broad category of gods. I don't find it useful, how about you?

 

[Orbit]

regarding ad-hom:

The two individuals I am debating with primarily opened themelves up to ad-hom arguments. @It Aint Necessarily So's entire argument is based on their own individual excellence. That's it. That's what they said. That opens the door to personal critique. If their argument is "I'm right because I'm demonstrably perfect", then showing their personal flaws is appropriate. It's not nice. But they opened the door. There's almost no other way to argue it. Also, showing that there is an alterantive plausible explanation for their feelings of absolute excellence is warranted especially if that same thing is influecing their judgement about what it means to have a religious experience. This is no different than anyone on the forum saying, "that wasn't a god, that was just luck"

@F1fan is basically doing the same thing. But theirs is cloaked in the verbage of "critical thinking doesn't do that", but the implication is "but I do and I'm great at it." They do make claims like "that is not wise". Also he has said "if your god existed, then you would behave in the way which is ideal to my religion". By saying this, F1 has opened the door to arguing that they don't know what critical thinking is; they themelves aren't wise so they can't ID it. They don't know what their religion really is, and they don't know what my God is. All of those open the door to arguments which appear to be an ad-hom fallacy.

As an example: if I was debating with a Jew, and they were saying something divisive, and I said Kol Yisrael Chaveirim! And they were like Bull!. And I said Tehillim 133! And said, you're being incoherent. Then it would appropriate for me to say, you don't really know Judaism do you.

Regarding agression:

What you're observing is dominance. Absolute dominance. People don' like it. That is part of my tactic. It's ugly, but it's working. In order to show It Aint's flaws, I'm being very forceful, and it's working. They've been caught flubbing and floundering. And I actually think it's dishonesty. They think I'm being dishonest, so they think its OK to be dishonest. Which is a major flaw. That is flawed thinking, especially if it can be shown they're being either dishonest or they are unable to keep track of what they're saying. Or it there's a contradiction. All of these work in my favor. Also. As long as I maintain a dominant position. There is no way I'm going to get angry and make any of those same mistakes myself. The only mistake I'm making that I can see is... my brain is much much faster than my fingers. Even though I am a ridiculous fast typer. So, there's spelling mistakes and loads of typos. So what.

I am sacrificing my reputation. But I don't care if people think low of me. I literally don't. The only value I might gain from being here is interacting with new people. And if some new person arrives and my reputation reaches them through a back channel. I really don't care. If they are so easily influenced by some random person saying, "put that guy on ignore" so be it. I feel like I have heard all there is that can be said from atheists about the topics I care about. It's just too simple. And the people who show up here, really just seem to want to kick Christianity, for no good reasons at all.

So there's a method to my madness, as they say.



Not at all! I am right on point.

I brought the qualities needed to know that a god exists. They were rejected demanding absolute proof or "I was wasting the OPs time".
In support of my claim, I brought my defintion of a god. The atheists are rejecting it.

Therefore, if I can prove that atheists don't know what a god is. And then show that they lack the qualities to ID one. I have fully supported my claims. My approach is, show them their god. Show them that they cannot ID it even though it should be easy and obvious.



The outrageous claim is: "I know what is happening with everyone elses spiritual experiences, because I know myself." On questioning, this was not exaggerated. The individual actually thinks their own, probably drug induced, experiences reflect everyone's experience. Not only that there is a god-level knowledge being asserted. And it goes from there. This individual has made claims like this before. They have always been shut down, with the simiple test, "OK, tell me about my spiritual experiences" But when the person fails, they reject it saying, "Of course I'm right, you believe X,Y,Z you must because you are a... and if you say you are experienceing something spiritual it MUST be X,Y,Z, because I am the most perfect thinker". But none of the details match. 0 correspondence. It's all a self-deluded ego trip.

That's what's happened and it's pretty outrageous. And it's not the first time.



Certainly. It's kind of like a perfect storm. Because of the defintion of a god, anytime a person lifts up an ideal as a role model, or discourages something as a universal flaw, they are claiming that a god exists. Also, there is a special god included in the defintion which prohibits an individual from accepting the definition of gods to evade detection.

It all goes back to the simple general definition of a god, which the atheist rejects, because if it were accepted, then they could not identify as an atheist. It's a self-reinforcing delusion. Evidence in support of the defintion has been given, it's undeniable. A god is anything with the power to create, destroy, and inspire.

Premise 1: The atheist does not know how to define a god.
Conclusion 1: They will not know if they are making a god claim.

Premise 2: The definition of god is a general category and includes many things.
Premise 3: The probability that an atheist will make a god claim increases depending on the number of gods.
Conclusion 2: If the number of gods is infinite it is impossible not to make god claims.

Premise 4: One of the gods included in the general category is pure negation. It has unique properties.
Premise 5: One of the unique properties is that it forces defintions of gods into a narrow band prohibitting it's own detection.

Conclusion 3: Denial of this god is a making a god claim because of the unique properties of this god.
Conclusion 4: All atheists make god claims when they identify as atheist per the defintion of a god.

The quality needed to know that such a god exists per the definition is to understand things which are supra-rational. Meaning, a person needs to be able to undertand the effect without precisely knowing the cause. Understanding does not require direct knowledge. That is supra-rational. And if I listen to the atheist arguments, none of them meet this criteria. That is a contra-postive supporting my claim. If the negation is false, then the affirmation is true.

The only part of your post that answered the question I asked is this: "Because of the defintion of a god, anytime a person lifts up an ideal as a role model, or discourages something as a universal flaw, they are claiming that a god exists."

This is nonsensical. As are your "premises". First, you lump all atheists into the same bucket, as if they all think the same way. This is false. Second, you attribute to them beliefs that they do not have, by definition. You seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of the diversity of, and definitions of, atheism. You seem to "fill-in-the-blanks" with your own ideas, from your own imagination, of what atheism is. Why do you do this?

In a pluralistic society, I would hope that everyone has the right to their own position regarding gods. I certainly don't tell the theists they are immoral for holding their beliefs, and I would expect that theists not attack others who don't share their ideas about gods. That is what religious tolerance is.

 

[dybmh]

Wrong, I am using the accepted definitions. I have rejected your special definition which is overly broad and unuseful.

This isn't a defnition I find anywhere in dictionaries. This is certainly something believers might assume.

I claimed no such thing.

You aren't using language properly nor honestly. You are trying to create definition that force 'some belief in god' onto atheists that they don't actually hold. I suggest you use the common definitions of god so that you can create a valid argument. Of course, atheists don't believe in gods, so that wouldn't work either.

I made no such claim.

This isn't an accurate description. I don't see how it is rational to assume atheists will consider any inspiration as a god. Youbelieving this all devends on the defintion you created, which is rejected by me, and others.

False, I mentioned my two ex-girlfriends that inspired songs.

Everyone except you. Use correct definitions if you want to make valid arguments. Making up definitions is invalid.

Nonsense. You simply are choosing the definition that permists you to retain your denial. The keywords are: influence and supreme importance.



You cannot deny the power and objective evidence of the gods that were active in the Jan 6th riots. Anytime you lift up "critical thinking" as an absolute ideal you are making a god claim. And when you do not apply that ideal to yourself you are serving another god "hypocrisy". When you deny it you are serving another god. When you are blind to your own denial, that's another god.

Every post you make is full of god claims. The only way to avoid it is to moderate yourself and walk a middle path. Which BTW is Judaism.

More elaborate falsehoods. Atheists on this forum, and likely elsewhere, use the common definitions. Only you have a problem with this. Could it be that the authentic definitions don't allow you to win in your prejudicial angst against those who aren't convinced gods exist?

I only have a problem, when there is a problem. Like @Audie's bigotry, and the complicity of the crowd of Atheists. But they don't actually care about bigotry, they actually care about critical thinking. It's all just self-delusion.

You don't make an effort to defend your special definition, and only write this is a set of untrue claims. There is no point in trying to correct your biased errors, they are so absurd. You offer no facts, no coherent explanation. This list tells us about you, not what atheists are.

Not true. I brought you evidence of gods active in the Jan 6th riots. You cannot deny it. I explained why making broad assertions about atheism is justified and requires virtually no support at all.

Your own behavoir in this thread and others is evidence of the god(s) you ignorantly serve. You appear to be a slave to them. I have no reason to interfere with your life if it makes you happy... until you ask me to or you and others target and prey peaceful innocent people. Then I will try to either contain you or destroy you as is proper and just.

 

[F1fan]

Nonsense. You simply are choosing the definition that permists you to retain your denial. The keywords are: influence and supreme importance.

View attachment 79546

Oh, like a celebrity. Why didn't you say so? Your definition was "something that had the power to influence..." which suggested it acted on humans. This definition is solely on the human who feels fervor and they alone have the power to assign and allow significance and meaning. This is optional and completely dependent on the human's decision making.

This doesn't really mean god in the context of this debate, don't you know? It's an exageration of admiration. No one thinks it really means god. Your second dilemma is that the use of this meaning is still voluntary. Just because I'm a fan of Ronny Moorings and Mark Hollis doesn't mean I consider them gods. I think this tangent of the debate should be in the entertainment area of RF, if there is one.

Still, why would anyone be a huge fan of a destoryer, unless you are referring to Trump lovers who consider him a celebrity god, and his destructive acts against the USA and many citizens and individuals makes him fit your definition.

You cannot deny the power and objective evidence of the gods that were active in the Jan 6th riots. Anytime you lift up "critical thinking" as an absolute ideal you are making a god claim. And when you do not apply that ideal to yourself you are serving another god "hypocrisy". When you deny it you are serving another god. When you are blind to your own denial, that's another god.

Trump would be a god. I guess being gullible is the god of Trump supporters. Do they claim this? I doubt it.

Every post you make is full of god claims. The only way to avoid it is to moderate yourself and walk a middle path. Which BTW is Judaism.

Here comes the shifting goalposts and sales pitch. LOL.

Moderate yourself? When are you going to start walking this path? Show us it works.

I only have a problem, when there is a problem.

You create a lot of problems when you misrepresent others.

Like @Audie's bigotry, and the complicity of the crowd of Atheists. But they don't actually care about bigotry, they actually care about critical thinking. It's all just self-delusion.

See what I mean? @Audie hasn't shown any bigotry. And your bias against atheists is something that has consumed you. You exhibit a great deal of anger, which doesn't indicate moderating yourself.

Not true. I brought you evidence of gods active in the Jan 6th riots. You cannot deny it. I explained why making broad assertions about atheism is justified and requires virtually no support at all.

You made dubious claims with fringe definitions. It has nothing to do with the classic definition of gods as supernatural beings.

Your own behavoir in this thread and others is evidence of the god(s) you ignorantly serve. You appear to be a slave to them. I have no reason to interfere with your life if it makes you happy... until you ask me to or you and others target and prey peaceful innocent people. Then I will try to either contain you or destroy you as is proper and just.

Your claim has one major flaw, and that is the conscious and deliberate recognition by me that anything is a god (in the obscure definition you finally posted). If we atheists were Taylor Swift fans you would no doubt find a collection of people who consider her a god. But alas, it isn't the case (at least for me, don't let me down atheists).

 

[dybmh]

The only part of your post that answered the question I asked is this: "Because of the defintion of a god, anytime a person lifts up an ideal as a role model, or discourages something as a universal flaw, they are claiming that a god exists."

You didn't want a response to the claims of aggression and ad-hom? I think it is important to point out that if a person is using their own personal excellence as the reasons for judging other people, then they have opened the door to personal critique which appears to be ad-hom. And the way I brought objective evidence of these personal flaws is by being aggressive. And dominating the debate prevented me from making the same mistakes they were making.

This is nonsensical. As are your "premises". First, you lump all atheists into the same bucket, as if they all think the same way. This is false. Second, you attribute to them beliefs that they do not have, by definition. You seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of the diversity of, and definitions of, atheism. You seem to "fill-in-the-blanks" with your own ideas, from your own imagination, of what atheism is. Why do you do this?

It is not my imagination. Athiests who define atheism say that it is the simplest default position. So simple that babies are by default atheists.

I actually don't lump them all together in they way I think you're describing. But they are all similar in a very basic simple way.

In a pluralistic society, I would hope that everyone has the right to their own position regarding gods. I certainly don't tell the theists they are immoral for holding their beliefs, and I would expect that theists not attack others who don't share their ideas about gods. That is what religious tolerance is.

Atheism is amoral. That is what I've said. I also said atheists can be evil, and that was proven in this thread. It cannot be denied.

What I am doing is judging actions. There shouldn't be any objection to this. I have abundant religious tolerance. This "void" as I have called it is useful in very specific circumstances, IF, big if, its mechanics ( for lack of a better word ) limitations and sphere of influence is understood.

The simple truth is, just because a person identifies themself as something, doesn't mean that's what they are. A self-identity is just that: "I want to be known as X, Y, or Z". The problem with identying as an atheist on a debate forum occurs when the atheist asks for proof that a god or gods exist. If they do that, then they are saying, "prove that I cannot be an atheist". Providing that proof is denying that person their own identity. No one likes that. But that's what they're asking for.

The same thing happened on this thread with me. To disprove that @It Aint Necessarily So's god-claim about themself, I asked them to tell me about my beliefs. They proceeded to tell me that I believe in a primitive notion of spirits. They said I must. They also said that I believe in a pantheon. I must. It's not true. But that is their absolute certain unshakable (completely unsupported) judgement of my beliefs.

When I am making a claim about what it means to be an atheist, it doesn't feel good to the atheist, because I am challenging their identity. If they are secure in their non-belief, it shouldn't matter too much. I didn't make a huge deal about the pantheon comment. I know it's not true. I know it's ignorant. It's no more of an insult than calling me a, I don't know, an amethyst.

There are 2 primary reasons that it stings the atheist to be considered a theist. For those who show up to debates against religious people there's an inherent anti-theism (bigotry) that goes along with it. For those who departed from a faith group, identifying as atheist helps them to make sense of their life experiences. Usually it's both. But, apatheists are not atheists. I have friends whose eyes literally glaze over if anything religious comes up. If I said to them they are serving a god, they would be like, "so what?"

So, it's not a lack of tolerance that you are observing in me. It's simply accuratley identifying what is happening with a person who IS an atheist. There are various ways of identifying these people. The simplest way is to note that they reject any and all objective evidence of gods operating in the world. No matter how it's defined, not matter what happens. It all goes into a void. And they lift up this void as an ideal. But because it's void, they deny its own existence. They become ignorant and arrogant, at times, not always. It depends on whether the void is being invoked. Literally. Do you know what invocation is?

In the extreme it is always being invoked. For example, @It Aint Necessarily So. What they describe in their life seems to be a constant devotional to the void. On a religious forum, in a debate, odds are, the atheist is constantly invoking and proclaiming the majesty of their god, while simultaneously denying it, while simultaneously criticising anyone who does what they are doing. Pointing it out, and proving it is perceived as an insult, because, "religious plurality" and "atheists are persecuted". But they are in a debate forum, ad they are making a god claim whether they like it or not.

 

[Orbit]

You didn't want a response to the claims of aggression and ad-hom? I think it is important to point out that if a person is using their own personal excellence as the reasons for judging other people, then they have opened the door to personal critique which appears to be ad-hom. And the way I brought objective evidence of these personal flaws is by being aggressive. And dominating the debate prevented me from making the same mistakes they were making.



It is not my imagination. Athiests who define atheism say that it is the simplest default position. So simple that babies are by default atheists.

I actually don't lump them all together in they way I think you're describing. But they are all similar in a very basic simple way.



Atheism is amoral. That is what I've said. I also said atheists can be evil, and that was proven in this thread. It cannot be denied.

What I am doing is judging actions. There shouldn't be any objection to this. I have abundant religious tolerance. This "void" as I have called it is useful in very specific circumstances, IF, big if, its mechanics ( for lack of a better word ) limitations and sphere of influence is understood.

The simple truth is, just because a person identifies themself as something, doesn't mean that's what they are. A self-identity is just that: "I want to be known as X, Y, or Z". The problem with identying as an atheist on a debate forum occurs when the atheist asks for proof that a god or gods exist. If they do that, then they are saying, "prove that I cannot be an atheist". Providing that proof is denying that person their own identity. No one likes that. But that's what they're asking for.

The same thing happened on this thread with me. To disprove that @It Aint Necessarily So's god-claim about themself, I asked them to tell me about my beliefs. They proceeded to tell me that I believe in a primitive notion of spirits. They said I must. They also said that I believe in a pantheon. I must. It's not true. But that is their absolute certain unshakable (completely unsupported) judgement of my beliefs.

When I am making a claim about what it means to be an atheist, it doesn't feel good to the atheist, because I am challenging their identity. If they are secure in their non-belief, it shouldn't matter too much. I didn't make a huge deal about the pantheon comment. I know it's not true. I know it's ignorant. It's no more of an insult than calling me a, I don't know, an amethyst.

There are 2 primary reasons that it stings the atheist to be considered a theist. For those who show up to debates against religious people there's an inherent anti-theism (bigotry) that goes along with it. For those who departed from a faith group, identifying as atheist helps them to make sense of their life experiences. Usually it's both. But, apatheists are not atheists. I have friends whose eyes literally glaze over if anything religious comes up. If I said to them they are serving a god, they would be like, "so what?"

So, it's not a lack of tolerance that you are observing in me. It's simply accuratley identifying what is happening with a person who IS an atheist. There are various ways of identifying these people. The simplest way is to note that they reject any and all objective evidence of gods operating in the world. No matter how it's defined, not matter what happens. It all goes into a void. And they lift up this void as an ideal. But because it's void, they deny its own existence. They become ignorant and arrogant, at times, not always. It depends on whether the void is being invoked. Literally. Do you know what invocation is?

In the extreme it is always being invoked. For example, @It Aint Necessarily So. What they describe in their life seems to be a constant devotional to the void. On a religious forum, in a debate, odds are, the atheist is constantly invoking and proclaiming the majesty of their god, while simultaneously denying it, while simultaneously criticising anyone who does what they are doing. Pointing it out, and proving it is perceived as an insult, because, "religious plurality" and "atheists are persecuted". But they are in a debate forum, ad they are making a god claim whether they like it or not.

You seem a bit obsessed with @It Aint Necessarily So . My last two posts to you didn't mention him, but you can't seem to let it go.

I disagree with the points you have made about atheism, but seeing your vitriol makes me question the value of engaging with you (see your posting about "contain and destroy??"). You're into destroying people? That sounds threatening, and I'm not sure I want to engage with someone who is that imbalanced and angry.

You take your own definitions as true; your imagination, not the facts, guide you. And I can't make heads nor tails of "the void" that concerns you so. It all looks like projection. I see no "god claim" here in this thread, and your exposition of it is confused and nonsensical. You DO stoop to the level of insults (eg atheists have no morality); and your insults are based on nothing but your own fevered imagination. Being in a debate forum isn't a license to hate and misrepresent, which is what you are doing.

So in short, I don't think arguing with someone who is bent on destroying others rather than being concerned with reasoned debate is a good use of my time. Take care.

 

[dybmh]

Oh, like a celebrity. Why didn't you say so? Your definition was "something that had the power to influence..." which suggested it acted on humans. This definition is solely on the human who feels fervor and they alone have the power to assign and allow significance and meaning. This is optional and completely dependent on the human's decision making.

Not only fervor. And they only have power to assign and allow if they are aware of it happening and how it is pushing their "buttons".

Your lack of awareness of your god(s) permits you to unknowingly influenced. Do you actually think the rioters on Jan 6th are aware of what is influencing them?

This doesn't really mean god in the context of this debate, don't you know?

That is your self-reinforcing-delusion talking.

It's an exageration of admiration. No one thinks it really means god.

Not true. I brought you a defintion which is not my own. Unless you think I published it on the web myself.

Your second dilemma is that the use of this meaning is still voluntary. Just because I'm a fan of Ronny Moorings and Mark Hollis doesn't mean I consider them gods. I think this tangent of the debate should be in the entertainment area of RF, if there is one.

Whether you consider them gods is irrelevant. Anytime you consume their media you are influenced by them. The opposite is also true for anything you dislike. The stronger the affection, the stronger the influence. The stronger the aversion, the stronger the influence. Both are powerful gods in your life. The only ones that are not gods are the ones to which your are apathetic. Again, I would have thought that buddhism taught you this.

Still, why would anyone be a huge fan of a destoryer, unless you are referring to Trump lovers who consider him a celebrity god, and his destructive acts against the USA and many citizens and individuals makes him fit your definition.

Hee. Because some people enjoy destroying. While they are destroying they are building themselves up. It's called "kiss-up-kick-down". Again, what are you practicing? Where is your buddhism?

Trump would be a god. I guess being gullible is the god of Trump supporters. Do they claim this? I doubt it.

Of course he is a god. Your assumptions are astounding. god =/= good. And yes, there are gods at work which produce "being gullible".

Here comes the shifting goalposts and sales pitch. LOL.

Moderate yourself? When are you going to start walking this path? Show us it works.

LOL. You are again applying YOUR version of moderation. I said a true middle path. The middle path accepts all and employs all on a case by case basis. Anyone who reads my posts has evidence that I operate this way.

As the number gods increases, the differences between them becomes less and less significant. When a person realizes the number of gods are infinite, then the differnces between them is NULL. This renders absolute strict monotheism.

I do not value any of the gods more or less. However, I choose how to value them, flagging them as helpful or harmful on a case by case basis.

May you blessed by the wisdom you have recieved. If you pour it on the ground that's on you. You're welcome.

You create a lot of problems when you misrepresent others.

It only hurts if it's true.

See what I mean? @Audie hasn't shown any bigotry. And your bias against atheists is something that has consumed you. You exhibit a great deal of anger, which doesn't indicate moderating yourself.

Nope. Heres her quote:

China ran off the feudal theocracy in
Tibet.
I expect it's the right wing godists
who think this was a terrible thing.

Notice the claim about "godists". Note the assumptions about "tibet". The bigotry is rampant in her posts. I think it's an inferiority-complex, based on comments about fearing/hating men ( also bigotry ), and repeated reminders of a small physical size when it is completely irrelevant.

You made dubious claims with fringe definitions. It has nothing to do with the classic definition of gods as supernatural beings.

Your desire to be bound to a classic defintion is noted. You are providing evidence that the atheist requires a primitve narrow shallow defintion to reinforce their delusion.

Your claim has one major flaw,

Oooh! Thank you. A major flaw. Just one. I look forward to reading it. Sincerely.

and that is the conscious and deliberate recognition by me that anything is a god (in the obscure definition you finally posted). If we atheists were Taylor Swift fans you would no doubt find a collection of people who consider her a god. But alas, it isn't the case (at least for me, don't let me down atheists).

No... that's not a flaw at all. Labeling TSwift a god, is completely irrelevant to whether or not she is one.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/636414991094587009/

 

[dybmh]

FWIW I offered no defense nor even
a reason for Beijing assering control
over Tibet.
I commented on the wretched conditions
created there by a feudal theocracy.

I do think highly enuf to move said person
to my exclusive iglist.

Your bigotry is all over your posts, all over the site. Your denial is meaningless. The likes and support are just coming from your fans. You could urinate all over them and they would be over-joyed. A critical-thinker can easily understand that.