If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

So may I assume you will not answer my question?

He doesn't answer questions. He just asks the same thing over and over and over and over and over. It's worse than a mindless automaton, since an automaton can 'learn' (why it's called AI).

 

[Into the Night]

This one?

"what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?"

If so, I would just say that it's not impossible. There's no real reason to believe any gods exist, much less structure your life around a belief in any particular one, but it's not impossible.

You cannot make evidence just disappear, Void.

 

[ZenMode]

Evidence is not a 'standard'. It simply exists.

Yes, but what qualifies as sufficient evidence to believe something varies from person to person. People believe in Sasquatch, flat earth, astrology, etc.

Evidence is not a prophecy.

Ok

Evidence is not speculation.

Ok

You cannot make it just disappear.

I don't need to. There's no more evidence for the Christian god than there is Harry Potter or Santa Claus, which is why reasonable people don't believe either is real.

You asked for objective evidence. I gave some.

The "stuff exists" evidence is only evidence of your God if you already believe in your god., otherwise the existence of stuff can be evidence for any being you pull from a fictional book.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes, I do consider myself an atheist because I've seen no gods. I've seen no evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

There is as much evidence today for Santa Claus that there is evidence for a god, which is to say there are stories written by people about both.

I disagree. IF a GOD exists...EVERYTHING you see, hear, feel, touch, and smell...is evidence of the GOD. But we don't know if any gods exist...so that evidence is AMBIGUOUS.

Anyway, if you want to guess that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does...you are free to do so. The fact that you are doing exactly the same thing theists are doing (except in a different direction) should not stop you.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'll have to take your word for that. Because 99% of believers on JPP would rather shit their pants than try to discuss atheism rationally. Even our local "agnostics" hate atheists and fear them because they fail to believe that the lack of evidence for something means it could be real.

I do not use the self-descriptor "agnostic" but my take on the issue is definitely agnostic.

There is no way I hate atheists (and certainly "fear' them...nor do I avoid discussing atheism rationally.

Atheists often refuse to discuss it rationally, though

Would you like to do so?

 

[Ross Dolan]

The simplest concept gets muddled in the mind of the believer.

It is so strange that people cannot understand or accept that my failure to believe their evidence DOESN'T somehow means I'm broken in my failure to believe.

That's why it seems that to JPP believers (and even the so-called self-proclaimed "agnostics" on here) all seem scared shitless of atheism. They cannot allow it to exist as atheism. It must be something else.

It's so simple: a failure to believe someone else's unevidenced claim.

And yet it causes no end to strain for the believers and "agnostics" on JPP.

This is all bullshit, gmark. It is beneath you.

If you want to discuss atheism rationally and intelligently...I am more than willing to do so.

 

[Into the Night]

How is that?

Just what he said. It's pretty simple.

It means so many different things to different people.

It only means one thing. It's meaning has never changed.

Even dictionaries define it in various ways...and the etymology is all screwed up.

No dictionary defines any word. That is not their purpose.

What do you suppose the "correct" definition is of a word that is in such condition?

The word 'atheist' first entered the English lexicon around 1570. Stemming from Greek 'theos', meaning 'belief' or 'religion', and the prefix 'a-' negating it.

In other words, it means no religion. It has no stance on whether a god or gods exist or not and simply doesn't care. If a god or gods exist or not, it's all the same to the atheist.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument (not a fallacy!) with argument stemming from that.

For Christianity, that initial argument is that Jesus Christs exists and is who He says He is...namely the Son of God.
ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from this initial argument.

The other name for the Circular Argument is the Argument of Faith. This is the very basis on what faith is. In other words, ALL religions are based on faith, and faith alone. It is not possible to prove a Circular Argument True or False. Any attempt to do so causes the Circular Argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of No God is a religion. It is fundamentalist in nature, even militant.

ZenMode is a member of this religion. Like usual, they try to prove their circular argument True. They often try to quote 'science' (without mentioning any theory of science) as the 'proof' (without providing any).

Another favorite tactic used by members of the Church of No God is to try to prove a negative (which is not possible), and thereby attempt a 'proof' their faith is True.

ZenMode is a fundamentalist in the Church of No God.

My opinion is better that the descriptor not be used because of the problem of understanding what a person means when they say, "I am an atheist."

The Church of No God often claims to be 'atheist', but they are a religion like any other. Atheism is not militant. It does not try to prove any existence of any god or gods and does not try to prove the non-existence of any god or gods. It simply doesn't go there.

Science is atheistic. It simply doesn't go there.
Mathematics is atheistic. It simply doesn't go there.
Logic is atheistic. It simply doesn't go there.
A very few people are atheists. They simply don't care whether a god or gods exist or not. They simply don't argue the point or even bother with it.

I happen to be Christian. I do not try to prove my religion to be True. I can't. I simply accept it on my own faith. I cannot accept it any other way.
My own experiences have guided that faith, but faith it remains, and faith it always will be.

Even if Jesus Christ were to personally appear and shake my hand, it is by faith that I believe He is who He says He is, and faith alone.

I can describe evidence supporting my beliefs and the beliefs of most any religion (including the Church of No God. That evidence exists, regardless. It cannot be made to disappear, which is what ZenMode is trying to do so desperately due to his own fundamentalism.

The word "atheism" is NOT the result of "a" meaning without + "theism" meaning "belief in a god" = without a belief in gods. In fact, the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism...so it cannot have been derived that way...and for most of its existence, it was not used that way. At some point, when atheists wanted to pretend their position was not "faith based"...they started using it that way.

Incorrect. The word 'theism' stems from the same root word in Greek. The prefix 'a-' negates the meaning. This is common in Greek and Latin.
Atheism has no faith. It is not a religion. It simply doesn't care.

In fact, the etymology of atheist is: "a" meaning without + theos (a god)** = without a god. One cannot be without a god unless there are no gods...so defining that way would be declaring that there are no gods.

'Theos' does not mean 'god'. It means 'belief' or 'religion', as in 'belief in a religion'. ALL religions are based on that initial circular argument, or Argument of Faith.

** From the Greek through the French

The French use the same Greek root (and the same prefix if it exists) and have the same meaning.

'Theos' does not mean 'god'.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That's why I make sure to get to the heart of the matter. Church of No God members don't like that very much because they like to hide behind various irrelevancies and obfuscations (such as asserting what they DON'T believe instead of asserting what they DO believe).

I don't see that at all.

I always probe further whenever someone says "I am an atheist" or "I am an agnostic".

You should. So do I. We agree here.

It clarifies a lot. It clarifies that the person believes that gods do not exist. It removes the obfuscation of "things that are NOT believed" and pinpoints precisely what IS believed.

I do not see it doing that, but present your logic that leads to that. I'll consider it more carefully.

Yup. Those are the people who I call 'Church of No God' members. It highlights the fact that they believe that gods do not exist.

There are many people who are not theists...who do not "believe" that gods do not exist.

I am such a person...and I am willing to defend that position.

Fine, but do they simultaneously "not accept as true" the belief that gods do not exist? If yes, then that's what an 'atheist' "correctly" is.

Yup. This falls under the 'Church of No God' classification.

Yup. This also falls under the 'Church of No God' classification, as this person still ultimately believes that no gods exist. You're not distinguishing anything other than a "confidence level" in said belief. The belief still exists, regardless of "confidence level".

I do not agree with that for the reasons I have already stated.

Both of those fall under the 'Church of No God' classification.
Neither fall under the 'atheist' category.

1) God exists. [theism]
2) God does not exist. [church of no god]
3) I don't accept 1 OR 2 as true. [atheism]

Yes, we agree here.



Yes sir.

So we disagree as to what the word 'atheism' "correctly" means. I think that's really where much of our disagreement lies. Otherwise, I think that we're seeing this topic in a similar light.

1) God exists. --- faith based belief [Into The Night and I are both in this category]
2) God does not exist. --- faith based belief [ZenMode is in this category]
3) There are some people who don't accept either of those statements as true (the "fence sitters", if you will). There is no belief involved there, faith based or otherwise, as none has been expressed by those people. [IBDaMann is in this category]

Fence sitter?

Because a reasonable guess cannot be made?

C'mon.

 

[ZenMode]

I disagree. IF a GOD exists...EVERYTHING you see, hear, feel, touch, and smell...is evidence of the GOD. But we don't know if any gods exist...so that evidence is AMBIGUOUS.

Anyway, if you want to guess that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does...you are free to do so. The fact that you are doing exactly the same thing theists are doing (except in a different direction) should not stop you.

"The fact that you are doing exactly the same thing theists are doing..."

I'm not. I don't believe in gods because I have never seen one, spoken to one, have seen no miracles performed by one, etc. So, I have specific evidence to support my belief.

The theist argument isn't one based on if's and shaky, at best, evidence. Using the theist view, there's reason to believe in Santa Clause. St. Nick was a real person, just like Jesus. There are stories written about St. Nick and subsequent stories about Santa Claus.

Why don't you believe in Santa Claus?

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I do consider myself an atheist because I've seen no gods. I've seen no evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being.

There is as much evidence today for Santa Claus that there is evidence for a god, which is to say there are stories written by people about both.

Santa Claus existed. He was a real man. He was a Cardinal in what is now Turkey. He was well known for his philanthropy towards children, particularly poor children.

St Nicholas became famous in this way, as news of his philanthropy traveled around Europe. Latin root languages use 'Santa' for 'Saint' (what a Cardinal is called). It was common to shorten the name to 'Claus', particularly in Denmark and surrounding areas.

The story of Santa Claus being a merry old elf with this philanthropy and wearing a red robe (like a Cardinal does) was created by a Coca-Cola ad, and all the embellishments such as reindeer (common in Lapland areas) came later...a nice story to tell children around Christmas time.

You are not an atheist. You belong to the Church of No God.

Attempted negative proof fallacy.

You cannot make evidence just disappear, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

What is your definition of "faith"?

Faith is the circular argument. Nothing more or less. That itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to PROVE a circular argument True or False creates the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist, such as you, try to do.

It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False. It is not possible to prove faith True or False. It simply exists.

Your religion requires faith just as mine does and just as gfm's does.

Attempting to prove a negative is a fallacy. That is not possible.
Attempting to make evidence just disappear is a fallacy. It is not possible.
Attempting an argument of ignorance is a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I do not use the self-descriptor "agnostic" but my take on the issue is definitely agnostic.

There is no way I hate atheists (and certainly "fear' them...nor do I avoid discussing atheism rationally.

Atheists often refuse to discuss it rationally, though

Would you like to do so?

Agnostics believe in a god or gods, but cannot describe their character or form.

 

[gmark77]

This is all bullshit, gmark. It is beneath you.

If you want to discuss atheism rationally and intelligently...I am more than willing to do so.

I don't believe you are.

Atheism is super simple but for some reason you need to expend tons of contorted mystical phrases which only have meaning to you in order to denigrate atheism.

And Cypress is 20X worse with his fake "agnosticism" while he desperately tries to demonize atheism with every single turn.

You two are completely lost in the discussion because you can't understand one simple concept: a failure to believe something is not an active belief.

Just like (wait for it) "NOT collecting stamps is NOT a hobby".

 

[gmark77]

I do not use the self-descriptor "agnostic"

Be what you are. That's the point. When someone doesn't understand atheism it doesn't mean atheists are wrong. It just means you don't understand atheism.

Atheists often refuse to discuss it rationally, though

How on earth would YOU know that?

Would you like to do so?

Sure. Let me know when someone with more than one functioning brain cell comes on JPP to discuss it.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't see that at all.


You should. So do I. We agree here.



I do not see it doing that, but present your logic that leads to that. I'll consider it more carefully.


There are many people who are not theists...who do not "believe" that gods do not exist.

I am such a person...and I am willing to defend that position.


I do not agree with that for the reasons I have already stated.

Fence sitter?

Because a reasonable guess cannot be made?

C'mon.

The atheist has often been described as a 'fence sitter', but there is no fence. They simply take no position and remain there.

That said, atheists will sometimes come to believe in a religion and cease to be atheists. People can change.

Something remain atheistic, such as mathematics, logic, and science. NONE of these care whether a god or gods exist or not. The simply don't go there.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't believe you are.

Atheism is super simple but for some reason you need to expend tons of contorted mystical phrases which only have meaning to you in order to denigrate atheism.

And Cypress is 20X worse with his fake "agnosticism" while he desperately tries to demonize atheism with every single turn.

You two are completely lost in the discussion because you can't understand one simple concept: a failure to believe something is not an active belief.

Just like (wait for it) "NOT collecting stamps is NOT a hobby".

Here you have it absolutely correct.

I have found many people simply do not understand English, particularly Democrats. They use a language that looks like English, but words in it have no meaning or shifting meaning. I call this the Liberal language. It consists almost entirely of buzzwords.

Using it is a demonstration of illiteracy.

 

[ZenMode]

Faith is the circular argument. Nothing more or less. That itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to PROVE a circular argument True or False creates the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist, such as you, try to do.

It is not possible to prove any circular argument True or False. It is not possible to prove faith True or False. It simply exists.

Your religion requires faith just as mine does and just as gfm's does.

Attempting to prove a negative is a fallacy. That is not possible.
Attempting to make evidence just disappear is a fallacy. It is not possible.
Attempting an argument of ignorance is a fallacy.

Is there anything you know to be true to the point that faith isn't required or are you trying to say that everything is faith because there are no knowns?

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, but what qualifies as sufficient evidence to believe something varies from person to person. People believe in Sasquatch, flat earth, astrology, etc.

Evidence is not 'qualified' and has no 'qualifiers'. It simply exists. You cannot make it just disappear.

There is evidence of Sasquatch (last sited apparently somewhere in Virginia, there's a website that tracks this).

There is evidence of a flat earth, but that DOES tend to ignore the evidence of a round moon, and the day/night cycle, navigation instruments as old as tall ships, geometry itself, and of course images sent by high flying aircraft and by spacecraft. Even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical. The so-called 'flat earth' belief is incredibly rare and was never a popular belief.

Astrology is still believed in today, based on an extension of Islam, where the positions of planets appearing in the sky are given attributes controlling various aspects of life experiences.

I don't need to. There's no more evidence for the Christian god than there is Harry Potter or Santa Claus,

Harry Potter is a fictional character in a popular series of books (and movies). Created by J.K. Rowling, the series is based on the boarding school model, coupled with a society of witches and wizards and clumsily gleaning aspects from Greek and Roman cultures. Despite this, it was put together well, and many people have enjoyed both the books and the movies.

So Harry Potter exists. He is a fictional character in a book, described that way by the author.

Just like Hobbits, Gandalf, Sauron, a land called Oz, Neo, Superman, and fanciful tales of a merry old elf emulating Saint Nicholas.

As for evidence. You cannot make it just disappear. Quantity is irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.

which is why reasonable people don't believe either is real.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you.

The "stuff exists" evidence is only evidence of your God if you already believe in your god.,

Nope. Evidence does not require the existence of any god or gods to exist. It simply exists.

otherwise the existence of stuff can be evidence for any being you pull from a fictional book.

Evidence a book exists is actually a proof by identity.

 

[gfm7175]

Fence sitter?

Call it whatever you will. It's simply a position that doesn't accept either belief as true.

 

[ZenMode]

Santa Claus existed. He was a real man. He was a Cardinal in what is now Turkey. He was well known for his philanthropy towards children, particularly poor children.

St Nicholas became famous in this way, as news of his philanthropy traveled around Europe. Latin root languages use 'Santa' for 'Saint' (what a Cardinal is called). It was common to shorten the name to 'Claus', particularly in Denmark and surrounding areas.

The story of Santa Claus being a merry old elf with this philanthropy and wearing a red robe (like a Cardinal does) was created by a Coca-Cola ad, and all the embellishments such as reindeer (common in Lapland areas) came later...a nice story to tell children around Christmas time.

You are not an atheist. You belong to the Church of No God.

Attempted negative proof fallacy.

You cannot make evidence just disappear, Void.

Yep. I mentioned St Nick in a previous post.

So you agree that it's possible that Saint Nick could have been elevated to a supernatural being, like Jesus, and the books about Santa Claus, people seeing Santa Clause, people interacting with Santa Claus, etc are evidence of that, so it would be reasonable to believe in Santa Claus, right?