You claim that God does not exist, part 3

You just did what you claim to not see yourself doing. You redefine the "definition" of the discussion without even attempting to find what others are talking about.

BTW, you are attempting to redefine what this thread is about.

 

I don't know if there was another definition of "definition" in this thread (anything like that has not been conveyed to me).

That being said, the definitions in my interpretation (and that of the English language) is very useful when it comes to claims of things' existence. If person A tries to proof of a first-mover kind of God and person B tries to disprove a Monty Python kind of God, then their failure to agree on a definition is the problem.

 

Lack of belief = doubt of existence

After arguing with them for years on this forum, and elsewhere throughout life.

Aren't you a comedian?

 

That's a problem for the atheists.

Divinity is an important distinction apart from God because "God" entails dogmas of the Church and also foreign gods. Thus "Divinity" reveals faith in its truer, purest forms. Divinity is spiritual essence, and so too God. Divinity also refers to those who are spiritually significant, throughout history, and also the messages traditionally conveyed by Mythology. To speak of God, or the other minor gods, is not a small feat. And it should be met with seriousness. Divinity is the message and meaning that allows such seriousness.

Moral power is the ability for an individual to take responsibility over their own lives, those around them (family), and furthermore other people. When a person is morally strong then He may begin to take massive responsibility, even for a whole society. This is expressed by Noble and Kingly types throughout the centuries. A morally strong person demonstrates spiritual strength. However some people choose Immorality too, which is Evil.

The Apex of life refers to human history, evolution, and hierarchies of social and moral power. Mankind is Lord over animals, for example, and not the opposite. It is not a dog, cat, or horse that Lords over man. To invert natural hierarchies is a great perversion, and the common perversion of western society today. Modern people use ideologies to claim that nature is inverted, that "women are equal with men", claims as such. But these are all false.

The call of the Lord cannot be denied.

Then you actively will ignorance of God. How can anybody the nature of God while simultaneously ignoring the Bible and Christ?

Proved you wrong, then.

 

So you have resorted to nonsense in your answers. I had hoped for more from a pseudo intellectual as you present yourself.

 

You aren't going to be able to twist doubt of existence into presumption of non-existence. Sorry. Also lack of belief without a belief in non-existence is also a lack of belief in non-existence as well. So is it also presumption that non-existence is false too as well as presumption of non-existence?

Your word acrobatics are falling apart and is over-complicating something very simple. Atheism at its most minimal is any belief system that doesn't include the existence of God. Technically some agnostics and Buddhists can be atheists too. There is no presumption of anything here.

What is your sample size? What percent of your sample has these beliefs? Wouldn't more radical atheists be more likely to go onto forums and express those views, meaning that your samples are skewed?

I didn't make up the Flying Spaghetti monster so unfortunately I can't take credit for it. Wish I could.

 

Being all-powerful, God should be anything but invisible to me.
Being all-present, God should be visible to me no matter where I am in the universe.
Being all-know, God should know exactly what it would take to convince me he exists.

 

OK, maybe I get what you're saying. So, if someone wants to postulate that there is a god, it is up to them to define that god. If there is something about their religion that I want to discuss, I really need to respect THEIR definition of their religion rather than having ME create what can only be considered strawmen.

I'm not averse to people believing there is a god.

However, there are forms or aspects of such belief that can be damaging to our society.

For example, one of the foundations for the rejection of science that we see today is born from measuring science by comparing it to Biblical allegories and thought processes. If one leans toward accepting the Bible, including the various allegories and statements of events as infallible and literal truth, it becomes understandably difficult to see science in a positive light - whether it is in education or as a contribution to the creation of public policy.

After all, what would cause such persons to learn the skills of searching for and finding scientifically valid evidence on ANY public policy issue when they see those skills as totally failing on the issues most important to them?

So, you'll not find me attacking the idea that a god or gods exist, but I WILL be working to project the importance and validity of science, because rejection of science by religion is a huge problem that exists today.

And, I'll note that science doesn't have anything direct to say about god, hopefully making it less threatening. Scientific method can not explore the supernatural.

Frankly, I think the real problem is religion, not god.

 

Because it would be obvious if he did.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- for finite objects. In the special case of an infinitely powerful and all-present god there's no such thing as evidence, only proof. It is the non-existence of proof of infinite God that is proof of God's infinite non-existence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support.

Admit- as if we're denying the obvious but it's not obvious. What's obvious is that infinite God is not possible and cannot exist other than in your imagination. That's why we're atheists. Atheism is not an 'ism'. It's not a competing philosophy or religion. We aren't promoting unsupported claims about the supernatural, we simply reject the one's you're promoting like a con artist.

 

Na. It's like...

Love and marriage, love and marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
...
================================================

god and religion, god and religion
Go together like $hit and a pigeon
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other

god and religion, god and religion
Separated by not a smidgen
Ask the local gentry
And they will say it's elementary

Try, try, try to separate them
It's an illusion​

 

Especially for those who know Jesus is returning next week.

 

We use the exact same rational logic as you do. If you can understand why you deny the existence of Romulus and Remus and Zeus and Hera, you will understand why atheists deny the existence of your god (whichever yours is).

Do you take that into consideration when you deny the existence of Romulus and Remus and Zeus and Hera?

See above.

No. That's just a comment made by theists who actually know it's untrue. We accept evidence. That's why we believe in things like ToE.

You've just intentionally added a few more untrue comments.

You've just intentionally made another untrue assertion. That's a common practice on the part of theists.

I will, as soon as you bow down to Apollo.

 

The irrationality of religious people is absurd. The argument to athiests is "how do you know" yet you believe in something with no evidence, no even logic to support it. It's far more rational to believe something with absolutely no evidence of existence does not exist. God existing is not the default setting because people cant' comprehend it

I consider myself agnostic, what IMO is the only truly honest religion view, essentially, I don't know.

But athiesm is far more logical than how every single religion describes god. There are just so many inconsistencies, bogus arguments (like "it takes faith" and "god works in mysterious ways') and other intelllectual copouts and logical fallacies, like "how could this happen without god." In addition, there is absolutely no evidence of god, and religious text written by ancient, ignorant men telling stories (often completely contradictory) that are so ridiculous and physically impossible is not proof or evidence, as well as all the other logical fallacies that go into believing religion.

IMO, this is all genetic predisposition in humans, which is why you have some people, although more the minority, that are not presdisposed to believe without any evidence (this could be other things as well as belief in religion). It probably co-evolved with human higher thought to allow humans to be able to handle the newfound intellectual capacity to think of things like their own death, why they are here, etc, that other animals are not believed to have.

Even when I had to go to sunday school and church as a kid, I never believed, never liked it. It was something I had to do (thankfully my dad was cool and let me make my own choice after confirmation and I never went to church again except for weddings, baptisms, etc). Might be why I went into science, and more particularly life sciences.

 

I guess those few years of church and Sunday school were enough to make you agnostic despite your comment "The irrationality of religious people is absurd." That little seed of god indoctrination is still there, somewhere deep inside your subconscious.

 

If there is any particular point I fail at making clear, I'm happy to rephrase it.

 

Exactly.

I agree. I think to resolve the kind of issues you bring up, as well as the one in the OP, we need a consistent way to formulate and address arguments. In any science paper worth its salt, everything important is going to be well defined.

 

Your entire stance with anyone who questions you to start with. You need to stop thinking that what you decide has any relevance to the thinking of others and telling them they are wrong because they don't agree with you.

 

Could you please quote the place where you think I said that? And maybe state what you think I was trying to get across?

I have "defended" my views in this thread some times, but that's mostly because I fear I didn't make myself clear.

You say

but I don't think I have provided any definitions of God (which is what the thread is about), or argued that any ones I have provided are particularly correct. I have provided some definitions for examples, but I don't argue that those are the only possible definitions of those words (although I might if you particular one that I happen to believe in).

 

Well, it's a problem for anyone who wants to say anything about anything.

This still strikes me as a description rather than a definition. Although some parts still elude me because they rely on other words whose definitions I'm not sure of.

Consider a Jew who does not believe in that connection between God and Christ you talk about, but who still believes in an almighty creator/ruler of the universe. I would say such a person believes in God, but according to your definition, he does not. That strikes me as inconsistent with English, since Jews are generally considered to believe in God.

 

You say to discuss intelligently, we must agree on terms prior to the discussion. Is that a fair statement?

When your "views" have been denied, you go on the offensive denying that any other definitions by its nature is less than true. In doing so, you admit that you are at the least biased and not in favor of the free exchange of information.

You make clear that you think yourself to be superior, while self defining superior to suit your definition.

Not open minded at all.

 

What definitions have I denied? I haven't said or implied anything about superiority.

 

Only that definitions that you accept are the only ones that count. Talk about ego and a superiority complex.

 

And yet you can't seem to provide an example. When it comes to my disagreement with Heretic, that's not because I reject his definition, I just don't think that the text he provides is the definition he uses (even if he thinks it is). If it is, then I have no problem with it.

 

For any examples, see your own posts with an open mind, not your usual close minded approach. If you have any integrity at all, you will see what I am talking about.

 

I've had a look, and I don't see it. We've been going back and forth a while, I'd be grateful if you gave just an example and an idea of what you think is wrong with it. I think it'd be worth the time, compared to you insisting they exist and me going back to check again and then have to ask again.