Jump to content


Photo

Atheism As A Belief


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 04 January 2011 - 09:47 PM

The belief or disbelief in God is in a sense a nonissue. What has it got to do with the price of tea in China? A simple thought experiment can prove this point. Believing that God exists is like believing that you, I or others exist or don’t exist. The “belief” does not seem to affect our actual existence. If we close our eyes (or not as we wish) and tell another to cease to exist, it will not stop their existence (try it). Moreover, if we say to thin air that a being of our own creation should suddenly exist, that being will not suddenly come into existence either. Our “belief” has little to do with external realities.

What then is the point? Well, that there are individuals-- autonomous beings-- in existence whose existence has nothing to do with whether we created them or wish to un-create them. Nor does our belief that they exist or do not exist have seemingly any effect on whether they actually exist. The ability for God to exist uses the same argument that we use for our own existence. Ultimately, we exist because we exist. Atheism proposes a closed system that does not “allow” the existence of other beings of high intelligence.

The atheist point of view essentially takes on the role of deciding who can and cannot exist. With the alleged existence of 6.7 billion beings on earth, all of which have godlike characteristics because they exist as unique, creative and separate beings, atheism has a giant lack of “proof.”

Atheism is a worldview created by a human that has to be “sold” to others. It is a “thought” that has not been realized from a mental source that does not seem to have the capacity to cause “it” to leave thought status. Every time we acknowledge the existence of another, we observe proof that atheism is a human “belief” –a fabrication that has nothing to do with our shared reality. When someone tells us who can exist or can’t exist, we might want to question that person’s view of reality. So much for “beliefs!” As Shakespeare said, “Much ado about nothing!”

No proof? How about 6.7 billion and counting? We need to think about that the next time we decide to take seriously someone who wants to tell us who can and can not exist.

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 January 2011 - 06:16 AM

I've found that only atheists who believe in atheism will deny their belief (or faith) in atheism; or their faith in “No God”. Instead they’ve retreated into a more agnostic stance they call “soft atheism” , decrying “I’m not saying there is ‘No God’, but rather that no one has adduced enough evidence to prove God exists”. In other words, we haven’t provided any actual positive “knowledge” of God!

Again, look up “agnostic” (or no knowledge).

Also, Dave brings up an interesting point in: http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1462 (see post #2) concerning whether or not there is really such a thing as an atheist (or agnostic for that matter); which is supported by Romans Chapter 1 as well.

I have also given atheists every chance to provide foundations for atheism, and atheistic origins using the very materialistic procedures they espouse to use. But, all it get is “a priori” presuppositions and equivocations;

http://www.evolution...topic=3001&st=0

And a spin-off of that thread which further explores further into your assertion can be found at: http://www.evolution...topic=3059&st=0
And that is, “why do atheists shift the burden” of proof. If they (atheists) are going to make an assertion, “there is ‘NO’ God”, then it is incumbent upon them to provide factual evidence to support their assertion. But they’ll say, “well, no one has provided enough evidence to prove there is a God”. This begs two important questions:

First: Are they totally ignoring the evidence For God?

Second: Do they have the factual evidence to disprove the theists evidence FOR God?

In the case of the first question, the answer is one word; “Denial”.

In the case of the second question, it is incumbent upon the atheist who says there is NO God, or there isn’t enough evidence for God, to provide their factual evidence to support their statements, because “saying it’s so, doesn’t make it so”! And equivocations, opinions and “a priori” presuppositions, are NOT factual evidences.

To see prime examples of atheistic smoke screens (other than the links provided above), see:

http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0

And

http://www.evolution...topic=3891&st=0

In the above link, you'll see a classic atheistic "Burden Shifting" tactic in post#2, then equivocations to support or wriggle out of the position, in the following posts.

#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 05 January 2011 - 11:17 PM

Hi Ron,
Yes, what you say is so true my friend. Let us be of good cheer. Though we plant seeds, or water or pull out weeds, we do so for a purpose that may not be seen now. There are two minds we are educating when we teach others—the conscious mind and the subconscious mind. Everything goes in both of these minds and gets reasoned through eventually. That which makes sense may appear as a change in a person’s philosophy of life at some later date. And so we trudge on not wearing in doing well. I give you my encouragement and thanks for yours.

Since the converse seems true, my thinking is that if we tell the truth often enough someone may believe it. The point I was trying to make is that eventually creativity comes into play ( a recurring theme in my posts). Creativity is not connected to “evidence” or even logic for its process. A choice is a creative act to bring one of usually two things into existence (validity) in the human mind. Once “it” is a thought, from there an attempt is made to bring that thought into the “physical” world. The "creator" also tries to sell "it" to others. Some ideas make it others don’t--they just stay ideas of their creator.

Evo Science and atheists have decided (created) from their native creative ability which they steadfastly deny they do the necessity for evidence (physics) to prove there is a God. God is above physics. Our awareness of creativity makes it somewhat amusing to us. Nevertheless, they deceive themselves that they are not like us and use only “objective” “evidence” for their decisions of “truth” ( what they create). As a scriptural reference, they have Abraham as their father (they are self-righteous).

The law of creativity is for the spiritual or metaphysical world and is the equivalent of a biogenesis in that world. Existent things come from the non-existent in that world created by a being that exists. Since God created the physical world from his presence in the spirit world, creativity may be considered something coming from nothing (as viewed in the physical world). Our ideas are created by us with one leg in the physical world and another in the spiritual world—that includes the idea there is no Creator God.

IMO that’s like saying there is no you, others or me. It’s the equivalent of saying, “I am not creating what I am creating!” This ends up being internally illogical—not to mention a waste of time. It’s as useless as two equals fighting each other.

I read your references and find no reason to disagree with any of the rhetoric and observations made. It was very enlightening. Hopefully my two cents worth can be a contribution to the already excellent repetoire.

In the final analysis the atheist has “chosen” to arbitrarily decide to create the idea that there is no God. Therefore, his requirement for evidence ( his belief or "evidence") has little to do with his decision to “un-create” God. The slight of hand is the ruse of “evidence” which itself is created or uncreated by his point of “view” as a means to an end.

Evo scientists and atheists are just as creative as the rest of us. That’s one reason I suspect they come up with an answer to everything we throw at them. It's so easy to create answers. The trouble isevo scientists and atheists are deceived into not thinking they are creating their ideas. No, think they are “just” observing ‘reality”—the “truth” out there somewhere. What we end up doing is trying to convince them they are creators just like us. :)

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2011 - 06:13 AM

By the way Mike, I almost forgot to add this one:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=3073

It's a real eye opener.

#5 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2011 - 08:20 AM

I think this all further begs the question:

If an atheist (or atheists) become prone to expressing their strongly held beliefs and opinions, or emphatically defend their strongly held beliefs and opinions, in a "Dogmatic" fashion, can their atheism then be defined as a religion?

Now, I already know that there have been court rulings stating atheism as a religion, and there are spiritual humanists (atheists), and there are atheistic based religions (Buddhists), but I’m speaking directly to the atheists who don’t realize the theistic stances they're taking, and will deny these “theistic stances” to the very end.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 06 January 2011 - 10:13 AM

I just ran across this. So, if you want a pretty good definition of religious atheism, take a look at:

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

It's pretty descriptive, but is very cogent in its analysis.

On the left side of the screen click on "Atheism's Talking Points", then click on the "Advanced Topics" link, then click on the "Atheism: NOT a religion?" link.

Read the entire article, it is not long, but it is very succinct!

#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 06 January 2011 - 04:25 PM

I just ran across this. So, if you want a pretty good definition of religious atheism, take a look at:

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/

It's pretty descriptive, but is very cogent in its analysis.

On the left side of the screen click on "Atheism's Talking Points", then click on the "Advanced Topics" link, then click on the "Atheism: NOT a religion?" link.

Read the entire article, it is not long, but it is very succinct!

View Post

That court case could certainly be a precedent that could come back to haunt atheists.

I noticed similar thinking in terms of evo science and its relationship to atheism—that evolution does not necessarily follow from atheism. The two need not be connected. And then they cite theistic evolutionists etc. Without saying it, they infer a “Christian” could have invented evolution. It’s absurd! But when spinning why not be “good’ at it.

Often our only defense against such illogic is our ability to think. Given the poor education we give our students from k-12 these days in every day reasoning —not to mention our universities doing the same-- the “thinking” of the average Joe is deplorable. As a teacher all I did was try to help my students quit making wrong cause and effect assignments. They seem to think that any cause that preceded in time an effect caused the particular isolated effect that they had focused on. Of course this is essentially the argument of evo science and atheism—we exist therefore we evolved.

As a creative being myself, I would have never chosen evolution to do anything for me. But even if atheistic evos are told they have a choice they claim evo is the only way to go. The reality is that their behavior disagrees with their mouth (they buy intelligently engineered stuff like the rest of us). I always remember what Jesus said about that—“By their fruit you will know them.” “They justify their every inconsistency.”

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 12 January 2011 - 10:16 AM

So then... Is atheism simply a materialistic religion?

Can an atheist provide any facts to support our origins, or are they simply proceeding on faith?

#9 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:26 PM

Faith

The thing is since we are all autonimous what they call a fact is often different from what we call a fact. I would surmise they have (created) all kinds of facts in their mind that prove they are right. "Evem as they did not want to retain God in their knowledge He gave them over to a reprobate mind."

They believe there was a Jefferson, a Hitler, a Washinton, their great grandfather etc. and loads of other things all on faith! They just discriminate when it comes to God. B) They seen blissfully unaware that it takes just as muvh faith to believe in one being as it does another.

#10 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 12 January 2011 - 04:37 PM

I couldn't help but notice that no atheist has managed to make an input towards this topic. Are they avoiding it, or simply ignoring it as to not have to think about the ideas suggested in this discussion.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 13 January 2011 - 04:53 AM

I couldn't help but notice that no atheist has managed to make an input towards this topic.  Are they avoiding it, or simply ignoring it as to not have to think about the ideas suggested in this discussion.

View Post


Although the "argumentum ex silentio" logical fallacy doesn't necessarily indicate a "lack of knowledge", "lack of evidence", or "lack of rebuttal", although the silence can sometimes be deafening.

Sometimes, it takes those who oppose your view point a while to formulate a counter argument(s). It could take them some time to sift through the evidences and come to a conclusion, or research further, or go to other forums and seek support or advice, or a combination of all three (my answer here is not intended to be all inclusive). But, sometimes, they may just want it to go away.

#12 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 January 2011 - 12:04 PM

I couldn't help but notice that no atheist has managed to make an input towards this topic.  Are they avoiding it, or simply ignoring it as to not have to think about the ideas suggested in this discussion.

View Post

We are asked to believe that the atheist exists against the odds of their being any intelligent being in this solar system and similar Galaxies of this universe.

Having sent the Rover to Mars, what is assumed to be the seemingly most hospitable planet in our part of this Galaxy, most atheistic evo scientists would say that there is virtually no chance that there is intelligent life on any other planet other than earth in this solar system.

Then using the same odds that apply against evolution happening here, they posit the idea that the odds are against any other intelligent being(s) in any other solar systems in our galaxy and the rest of the universe existing.

Keep in mind there are billions of intelligent beings on this planet. What does Dawkins say about climbing mount improbable? How do the same odds not apply to God? How can evo’s accept the odds against evolution and argue that it happened over and over but argue out of the other side of their mouth what it is no less a preposterous an argument that there can be no intelligent being out there when there are millions here! That is the insanity of their argument that there can be no God.

The odds that they use to preclude the existence of God are the same ones they spin to declare evolution is a fact. There can be no mount improbable for believers in God because evo’s say so.

When we use the same odds they use for the existence of God they expect us to not realize they are doing the same thing.

Fast forward billions of light years and note some other “intelligent” atheist out there somewhere in the cosmos “creating” the idea that he is the only intelligent being in the universe. Slightly arrogant isn’t it?

#13 Seek123

Seek123

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 62 posts
  • Interests:God<br />Music (I play piano, violin, guitar, and bass guitar)<br />Nature and camping (I have achieved my Eagle Scout Rank)<br />Reading<br />Friends<br />Biology<br />Much much more...
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Northwest Indiana

Posted 13 January 2011 - 01:26 PM

Ron, I can understand that they may be simply formulating a rebuttal I was just hoping that perhaps after ackowledging the fact that an atheist hasn't chimed in and shared their opinions, maybe one would.

Also, Mike I'm going to have to agree completely with you. I'm currently about half way through "Climbing Mount Improbably" by Dawkins and it shocks me how many people cannot see the hypocrisy in their worldviews.

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 January 2011 - 04:22 PM

Glad you see it. I thought I would to try and reduce the atheistic argument down to its lowest common denominator. The atheistic argument is a ruse when it comes to the existence of God. Debating whether someone exist is a gigantic waste of time. If we exist, we exist.

If the argument is not about God or our existence what is it about? Check my logic out and see if what I say makes sense?

God to us Christians is synonymous with rules of how to treat each other. There are two rules as Jesus summed it up. Love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. I once asked God wjo he loved more. He essentially convinced me it was a stupid questuion to ask. He said He didn't have to make such a choice and then asked me who of my friends would I be willing to choose over another? I went back in my box convinced that He loves, as he says everyone He created. Moreover, I had better do the same. The evolutionist thinks he has to choose when he dose not have to do so.

The atheistic point of view disagrees with this position. By declaring his atheism the atheist is reiterating the atheistic evolutionist’s point of view that he alone is the authority for right or wrong. If it comes down to a situation where his surviving or you or I, he reserves himself as absolutely the center of the universe and the most important person in the universe at that moment. In such a case you and I are expendable to further his existence.

Here is a another example of how atheists ultimately think. An atheist once told me that the majority of people in prison are Christian. Something like 3 to 4% of those imprisoned are not really guilty of their accused crimes. That leaves approximately 96% of the people imprisoned for “real” crimes against others. Usually jailed people are there because they have murdered, stolen, or raped and done wrong to others repeatedly. Jesu said by their fruit nehavior you will know them.

During the moment that they are committing these crimes they are committing an atheistic act. God did not tell them or command them to kill or steal. They as free moral agents and have acted independently despite what God commanded them not to do. Logically, their actions cannot be considered ordained by God. Rather, the opposite. These acts are acts of atheism and not acts of Christian behavior.

No society can function with any degree of peace with survival of the fittest as its only rule. Consequently, very few people refuse to go along with the basic rules of right or wrong. Unfortunately, places like Hati have come dangerously close but, even there it’s only the few that terrorize the others by their survival of the fittest head set. Most novice atheists are only so superficially and have not figured out where their path ultimately leads. Nor do they acknowledge the idea they created the idea that there is no God. They think they observed there is no God.

Evidence or no evidence is not required to prove God's existence to anyone. The decison to believe in anyone other than the self is an internal one and purely arbitrary. On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that there are other beings outside of us--6.7 billion and counting :P

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 14 January 2011 - 04:28 AM

Ron, I can understand that they may be simply formulating a rebuttal I was just hoping that perhaps after ackowledging the fact that an atheist hasn't chimed in and shared their opinions, maybe one would.

Also, Mike I'm going to have to agree completely with you.  I'm currently about half way through "Climbing Mount Improbably" by Dawkins and it shocks me how many people cannot see the hypocrisy in their worldviews.

View Post


First, let me say that I don't want to get stuck into argumentative rhetoric, or come of sounding mean towards the atheistic worldview. So, what I am really attempting to do is throw the facts out on the table, in as honest and meaningful manner as possible, and see where it goes.

Second, I'm not asserting here, that you are being anything other than inquisitive as well; but I am simply pointing out alternative reasons why no rebuttal has yet been forthcoming.

Third, Dawkins is nothing more than a hodgepodge of self-contradictions. His explanations for memes alone begs the "spiritual" and "religious" questions. He is the last person atheists should want to point to when attempting to refute atheistic religiosity.

#16 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 14 January 2011 - 06:16 AM

The  belief or disbelief in God is in a sense a nonissue. What has it got to do with the price of tea in China? A simple thought experiment can prove  this point. Believing that God exists is like believing that you, I or others exist or don’t exist. The “belief” does not seem to affect our actual existence.  If we close our eyes (or not as we wish) and tell another to cease to exist, it will not stop their  existence (try it). Moreover, if we say to thin air that a being of our own creation should suddenly exist,  that  being will not suddenly come into existence either. Our “belief” has little to do with external  realities.

View Post


Ok, so beliefs concerning the existence of beings do not necessarily constitute an accurate assessment of reality. As an atheist I concur. Although I must say that I do not agree that 'Believing that God exists is like believing that you, I or others exist or don’t exist', mainly because my existence or the existence of others is not a belief but rather is concrete fact based on actually experiencing empirical data. The same can't said about god.

What then is the point?  Well, that  there are individuals-- autonomous beings-- in existence whose existence has nothing to do with whether we created them or wish to un-create them. Nor does our  belief that  they exist or do not exist have seemingly any effect on whether they actually exist.

View Post


Ok, so far so good.

  The ability for God to exist  uses the same argument that we  use for our own existence.

View Post


I don't think so. That is a bit of a stretch. I can physically perceive our existence but cannot perceive god's. Therefore when I argue that I exist I can prove it by making myself available to any of the senses of those whom I'm trying to convince. When you argue that your god exists you can't do the same.


  Ultimately, we exist because we exist. Atheism proposes a closed system that does not  “allow” the existence of other beings of high intelligence.

View Post


Whoa, where did you get that idea. Atheism does not disallow the existence of other beings of high intelligence, it just doesn't give these beings god status.

The atheist point of view essentially takes on the role of deciding who can and cannot exist.

View Post


Where are you getting this stuff. Atheist don't decide who can and can't exist, we just don't agree with theists on one issue. I know you don't agree with atheism and with your understanding of it I can see why.


Atheism is a worldview created by a human that has to be “sold” to others. It is a “thought” that has not been realized from a mental source that does not seem to have the capacity to cause “it” to leave thought status. Every time we acknowledge the existence of another, we  observe  proof that atheism is a human “belief” –a fabrication that has nothing to do with our shared reality.  When someone tells us who can exist  or can’t exist, we might want to question  that person’s  view of reality.  So much for “beliefs!” As Shakespeare said, “Much ado about nothing!”

View Post


Ironically, if you substitute the word 'theism' for 'atheism' in the above passage, for the most part that's how I feel. Although I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say 'It is a “thought” that has not been realized from a mental source that does not seem to have the capacity to cause “it” to leave thought status.' Maybe you can elaborate.

No proof?  How about 6.7 billion and counting? We need to think about that the next time we decide to take seriously someone who wants to tell us who can and can not exist.

View Post


I'm not sure how the human population correlates with the validation of atheism or theism. Frankly, I fail to see the connection.

#17 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 January 2011 - 12:00 AM

Hi Philosophik,

Ok, so beliefs concerning the existence of beings do not necessarily constitute an accurate assessment of reality. As an atheist I concur. Although I must say that I do not agree that 'Believing that God exists is like believing that you, I or others exist or don’t exist', mainly because my existence or the existence of others is not a belief but rather is concrete fact based on actually experiencing empirical data. The same can't said about god.


Suppose you have a friend you haven’t seen in a month or two that lives in a distant city. You believe he exists and is alive but, word comes to you that he died two weeks ago. Did you realize that he was dead the day of his death or did you become aware of it when the news reached you? What I am talking about is the limits of human knowledge acquisition. We simply don’t know what we don’t know. We are separate individual beings, autonomous and self contained—finite sources of information. We are not all connected to a global continiously updating data stream.

Another definition of “belief” is faith. You had faith that your friend was alive until you were informed he was dead! Anything we believe is true is subject to new information and updates to our awareness. Concrete meaning unchangeable—hardly and not on planet earth. Things change all the time with or without our awareness—that’s why we have newscasts.

Unfortunately, you don’t seem to realize how creative you are. You said, the same can’t be said about God. Oh but it can. All you have to do is open your mouth and say it. It’s that easy. You have faith in lots of things—that the electric will be there when you turn on the light—that your friends you just left will be alive tomorrow, that your car will get you to work, that the boss will pay you etc. So If I say I have faith there is a God, you indulge yourself but think I am somehow subject to a different set of rules than you?


I don't think so. That is a bit of a stretch. I can physically perceive our existence but cannot perceive god's. Therefore when I argue that I exist I can prove it by making myself available to any of the senses of those whom I'm trying to convince. When you argue that your god exists you can't do the same.


If you say it is a stretch to you it is so but, not to me.

You are right you cannot physically perceive God but, God is like your mental state and thoughts not physical. You have to think God exists just like you think you and I exist. As I said before, if you want to create the idea that God exists you can so do that. It’s a choice. But at least accept that you created the idea that there is no God.

Whoa, where did you get that idea. Atheism does not disallow the existence of other beings of high intelligence, it just doesn't give these beings god status.

I don’t know you working definition of God. God would only be smarter than us is all.

Where are you getting this stuff. Atheist don't decide who can and can't exist, we just don't agree with theists on one issue. I know you don't agree with atheism and with your understanding of it I can see why.


I created it just like you do your stuff. Silly me and I went thru four years of college only to not be able to think clearly. Let me try again. If you tell me that you don’t think God exists that means at least God does not exist to you. Ok. I can accept that. My only concern is that I may be next in line to be told I shouldn’t exist. :lol:

My real bone of contention is that we are both creative but, you and evo scientists seem to have convinced yourselves that you guys alone have the right to create and decide what truth is ( I call it absolute truth status). You created the idea that no God exists just like I created the idea that God exists—only you claim you observed the “fact” that no God exists. All this and you have never left the planet looking for Him.

Ironically, if you substitute the word 'theism' for 'atheism' in the above passage, for the most part that's how I feel. Although I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say 'It is a “thought” that has not been realized from a mental source that does not seem to have the capacity to cause “it” to leave thought status.' Maybe you can elaborate.


Cool. I agree. When I say "a thought not realized "perhaps it could be more clearly said "a thought not actualized." In the creative process the first step is to think and then think about thinking etc. The automobile was a thought first and then brought into existence as was the lightbulb. Abstract ideas and concepts stay in the mental state.

I'm not sure how the human population correlates with the validation of atheism or theism. Frankly, I fail to see the connection.

The above is an allusion to the idea that we are made in the image of God—and are very similar to each other and Him.

#18 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 15 January 2011 - 01:32 AM

Suppose you have a friend you haven’t seen in a month or two that lives in a distant city. You believe he exists and is alive  but, word comes to you that he died two weeks ago.  Did you realize that he was  dead the day of his death or did you become aware of it when the news reached you?  What I am talking about is the limits of human knowledge acquisition.  We simply don’t know what we don’t know as we are separate individual beings, autonomous and self contained—finite sources of information.

Another definition of “belief” is faith. You had faith that your friend was alive until you were informed he was dead!  Anything we believe is true is subject to new information and updates to our awareness. Concrete eaning unchangeable—hardly not on planet earth. Things change all the time with or without our awareness—that’s why we have newscasts.

View Post


I fully agree with what you say here. A friend that existed yesterday may not exist today. And not being aware of a friends passing, I may assume he still exists. However, there is one fundamental difference between believing that a friend who existed yesterday still exists today, and believing that god exists. And it has to do with experience. I experienced the existence of the friend, albeit in the past, I have knowledge of the friends actual existence. I don't have faith that the friend actually existed, I know he did. Whereas I don't know god exists, but I have to have faith that he does. It's not the same thing.

Unfortunately you don’t seem to realize how creative you are. You said,  the same can’t be said about God. Oh but it can. All you have to do is open your mouth and say it.  It’s that easy. You have faith in lots of things—that the electric will be there—that your friends will be alive, that your car will get you to work, that the boss will pay you etc.  So If I say I have faith there is  a God, you indulge yourself but think I am somehow subject to a different set of rules than you. 
If you say it is a stretch to you it is so but, not  to me.

View Post


Again, saying that you have faith that something you actually experienced existing today (electricity, cars, friends, boss) will be there tomorrow, is not the same as saying you have faith that something (god) you have never experienced existing in the same way as the above examples, actually exists.

You are right you cannot physically perceive God but, God is like your mental state and thoughts not physical.  You have to think God exists just like you think you and I exist. As I said before if you want to create the idea that God exists you can so do that. It’s a choice.

View Post


I don't need to create the idea that god exists, it's already been done. God as an idea is real, there is no argument here. What I don't believe is when someone says that he is more than an idea, that he exists as a subjective omni-being beyond and within the realm of what we know to exist.


I created it just you do your stuff. Silly me and I went thru four years of college only to not be Able to think clearly. Let me try  again. If you tell me that you don’t think God exists that means at least God does not exist to you. Ok. I can accept that. My only concern is that I may be next in line to be told I shouldn’t exist.  :lol:

View Post


Don't worry, my philosophy is live and let live.

My real bone of contentions  is that we are both creative but, you and evo scientists seem to have convinced themselves that they and atheists alone have the right to create and decide what truth is ( I call it absolute truth status),

View Post


The above statement is tantamount to me saying that David Koresh and all Christians think they are the messiah reincarnate and that they are the path to salvation. Making sweeping generalizations like that are detrimental to any meaningful discourse. I am no more convinced that atheist alone have the right to create and decide what truth is any more than you are convinced that you are the messiah reincarnate like Koresh did.

You created the idea that no God exists just like I created The idea that God exists—only you claim you observed the “fact” that no God exists. All this and you have never left the planet  looking for Him.

View Post


You will never hear me claim that I have observed the fact that no god exists. Making such a claim is idiotic. This being because it is impossible to observe non-existence. It absolutely can not be done due to the fact that non-existence by definition does not exist, and existence is required in order to allow observation.

Cool. I agree.  When I say "a thought not realized "perhaps it could be more clearly said "a thought not actualized." In the creative process the first step is to think and then think about our thinking etc. The automobile was thought of and then brought into  existence as was the lightbulb.  Abstract ideas and concepts stay in the mental state.

View Post


I'm not sure what your point is here. Were you suggesting that atheist somehow are convinced that atheism is some sort of objective phenomenon that exists out there? That atheism is something more than an idea? Let me assure you that we don't. At least I don't.


The above is an allusion to the idea that we are made in the image of God—and are very similar to each other and Him.

View Post


Ok, I find this concept very interesting. Let me ask a question in an attempt to clear up a contradiction that arises from such a statement. If we are created in his image, explain how an omni-present non-physical being and localized physical beings such as us can share a similar image. To me they appear to be complete opposites.

#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 January 2011 - 02:10 AM

Hello Philosophik

I fully agree with what you say here. A friend that existed yesterday may not exist today. And not being aware of a friends passing, I may assume he still exists. However, there is one fundamental difference between believing that a friend who existed yesterday still exists today, and believing that god exists. And it has to do with experience. I experienced the existence of the friend, albeit in the past, I have knowledge of the friends actual existence. I don't have faith that the friend actually existed, I know he did. Whereas I don't know god exists, but I have to have faith that he does. It's not the same thing.

Then you have no understanding of false memory. Nor that the human memory is reconstructive not reproductive.


Again, saying that you have faith that something you actually experienced existing today (electricity, cars, friends, boss) will be there tomorrow, is not the same as saying you have faith that something (god) you have never experienced existing in the same way as the above examples, actually exists.


You do not have access to what I think or experience unless you guess or I tell you. The experiences I have are exclusive to me like yours are to you. The external is a mental representation through the five senses. We communicate with ourselves internally without the need of the five senses. Your decision of what truth is is something you created inside your mind. All I am telling you is we think and are creative. All information does not have to come through the five senses as you seem to believe.





I don't need to create the idea that god exists, it's already been done. God as an idea is real, there is no argument here. What I don't believe is when someone says that he is more than an idea, that he exists as a subjective omni-being beyond and within the realm of what we know to exist.

I think the word “know” is a bit strong rather believe might be a less godlike statement. Again you nor am I are an infinite source of information. Just as I hope you have faith, I exist, He is possible to exist even though you may not have experienced Him. In fact plenty of Beings exist without you believing they do one way or the other--and you have not observed them all. And you say you don't have faith? :lol:


Don't worry, my philosophy is live and let live.

Cool then the God thing to you and me is a non issue ‘cause it has nothing to do with whether we exist right?


The above statement is tantamount to me saying that David Koresh and all Christians think they are the messiah reincarnate and that they are the path to salvation. Making sweeping generalizations like that are detrimental to any meaningful discourse. I am no more convinced that atheist alone have the right to create and decide what truth is any more than you are convinced that you are the messiah reincarnate like Koresh did.

Ok I can see I exaggerated to some degree. I think the idea of the group is not valid. I believe in the primacy of the individual.

You will never hear me claim that I have observed the fact that no god exists. Making such a claim is idiotic. This being because it is impossible to observe non-existence. It absolutely can not be done due to the fact that non-existence by definition does not exist, and existence is required in order to allow observation.

There is mental observation. In fact we can observe our thinking emotions stc. (and even our observations). In terms of observing non existnece you don't believe people die? That is observing something that no longer exists. I can just imagine you being so politically correct so that you do not acknowledge observing that your friend no longer exists. That's funny. :lol:

#20 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 15 January 2011 - 05:36 AM

Hello Philosophik
Then you have no understanding of false memory. Nor that the human memory is reconstructive not reproductive.

View Post


Memory can be a tricky thing, and false memory does indeed pose problems, however it is not hard for the average person to discern the difference between a false memory of a friends existence and a real memory of a friends existence. For example, if you have your mother over for dinner and then she leaves is remembering the experience you just had a false memory or a real one. The moment she leaves your presence do you immediately transition from knowing she exists into believing that she did. I don't, but I guess you can be skeptical about whether or not you really shared that experience with a real person.


  We communicate with ourselves internally without the need of the five senses. Your decision of what truth is is something you created inside your mind. All I am telling you is we think and are creative. All information does not have  to come through the five senses as you seem to believe.

View Post


I beg to differ. Communication whether it be with yourself or others is a learned behavior. And you can't learn how to communicate unless you experience the actual process through observation. Ask yourself how someone who has never learned a language, or experienced any sensation via the five senses would be able to develop a sense of self in which they could actually formulate a meaningful inner monologue. As a biological being, if you don't know what symbols are you can't use them to represent information when you think. Furthermore, if you have never actually experienced incoming information due to sensory deprivation, how would you know what information is?

While I'll agree that not all information comes through the five senses, one needs a solid data base of information collected by the five senses in order to discover information that transcends observation.

As far as truth is concerned, I think the veracity of any truth claim requires more than simply making a decision to create it in your mind. Therefore, truth to me is more complex than me making a decision to create it in my mind.


I think the word “know” is a bit strong rather believe might be a less godlike statement. Again you nor am I are an infinite source of information.  Just as I hope you have faith, I exist,  He is possible to exist even though you may not have experienced Him. In fact plenty of Beings exist without you believing they do one way or the other--and you have not observed them all. And you say you don't have faith? :lol:

View Post


Why do you insist that I need faith that you exist? I don't have faith in your existence, I know you exist otherwise I would not be having a discussion with you. I'm not denying that it is possible that a being exists that you consider god (depending on what you consider god of course), lot's of thing are possible but it doesn't mean they are real. And the true nature of other real beings may or may not be what you think it is, it's possible they could deceive you into believing they are what they want you to think they are.

Cool then the God thing to you and me is a non issue ‘cause  it has nothing to do with whether we exist right?

View Post


YES, finally a christian has the guts to say it. Our existence is not dependent on god.

There is mental observation. In fact we can observe our thinking emotions stc. (and even our observations). In terms of observing non existnece you don't believe people die? That is observing something that no longer exists.  I can just imagine you being so politically correct so that you do not acknowledge  observing that your friend no longer exists. That's funny. :lol:

View Post


We don't observe our thinking emotions, we experience them directly. Excluding CAT scans and other technologies that are used to detect our inner workings of course, which I assume is not what you were alluding to.

Of course I know people die. And observing someone die is not observing non-existence. You are witnessing an actual event that exists. When someone dies their body doesn't just disappear taking everything in existence with it into oblivion eliminating existence altogether allowing you to observe non-existence. That doesn't even make sense. When someone dies it does not change the fact that the only thing you can observe is existence itself. You don't observe the non-existence of George Washington, you observe a world that exists without him therefore deducing that he does not exist.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users