Silly Religion

[Immanuel Can]

The reaction of the "enemy" in the Golden rule necessitates a loop.

How?

How, exactly, does it "necessitate"?

[Eodnhoj7]

The reaction of the "enemy" in the Golden rule necessitates a loop.

How?

How, exactly, does it "necessitate"?

People react to patterns by default, whether through a response or ignoring the person. For every action there is some response.

[Immanuel Can]

People react to patterns by default, whether through a response or ignoring the person. For every action there is some response.

Yeah, well, now you're a million miles from the Golden Rule.

[Eodnhoj7]

People react to patterns by default, whether through a response or ignoring the person. For every action there is some response.

Yeah, well, now you're a million miles from the Golden Rule.

Not really, both reciprocation and the Golden rule (which is to love others as one loves themself) are both moral loops.

[RCSaunders]

You asked me how I was certain. That's how. You cannot be certain of it that way, which is fine with me.

That's why I asked. It's not the kind of thing one can say one is "absolutely certain" about, because proving the non-existence of God would literally take all the knowledge in the universe, at all times and places, to know.

Prove to whom, IC? The purpose of proof is not to convince others, or even to convince oneself. The purpose of proof is to ensure one has not made a mistake in their own reasoning.

For example, correct reason requires concepts that actually identify something before one can think or reason about them. The concept knowledge, for examples, does not identify a thing, it identifies what only exists in human minds. Nothing can be proved or disproved based on all the knowledge that all the humans in the world have or don't have, and there is no other knowledge.

As far as proof is concerned a question like, "are there non-physical spirits," or, "are there beings in some other worlds (heaven or nirvana, perhaps), or, "is there a God," if they cannot be disproved, are not legitimate subjects of rational proof. They are, in fact, all invalid hypotheses.

A hypothesis is only valid if there is some way to prove it is untrue, if it is untrue. Just anything can by hypothesized if there is no way to determine it is not true, if it isn't. That is the real meaning of what is called, "falsification." If there is no way to prove a notion is false, if it is false, it is not only an invalid hypothesis, it is a meaningless notion. If anything is asserted, such as the existence of something, or the occurrence of some event, and there is no way to prove the thing does not exist, or the event never occurred, it would mean the proposed existent or event had, no possible discoverable consequence, which means that it just does not matter or mean anything.

In other words, if you could do it, you would be wrong about there not being a God...there would be, and he would be YOU.

We've already been down this road, IC. I have already proved I am not God. If I were God, I would certainly know it, and if I were God I would not lie about it. I'm not God, but if I were, that would be a lie, so ....I'm obviously not God.

This very simple piece of logic can be used by anyone to prove they are not God, which they are not. Since the only knowledge anyone has is their own, and everyone can know they are not God, and no one can know what is in anyone else's mind, there is no knowledge of God.

On the other hand, the Theist has a much, much easier burden of proof. All he/she has to do is to show that at some time, at some place, just one genuine act of God happened. It could have been one creation, one miracle, one prayer answered, one intervention, one epiphany, one incarnation, one anything at all...and if that happened, then Atheism would be proved wrong conclusively.

If the fictions that others write, hallucinations and dreams that people have, and feelings for which one has no explanation, and coincidences are evidence to you, fine. I've yet to observe a single act of divine creation, answered prayer (though I know of tons of unanswered ones), mystical intervention, epiphany (although my cat frequently makes them--the word only means appearance), or incarnation. [I know the New Testament use of ἐπιφανείᾳ always refers to the "appearance" of Christ, except for one reference in Timothy, always referring to his "second coming." I'm sure you weren't there for the first epiphany.]

If that is what you believe, than you do. None of that is even evidence to me, much less proof. Every religion and weird irrational belief in this world uses the same kinds of, "evidence."

... one can never prove Atheism right

Atheism does not, as far as I know, assert anything that needs to be proved. I do not believe there are gremlins dictating the future of the world. Do I have to prove it? Can I not be an agremlinist without having to prove agremlinism? [You already know I am not an Atheist and why, for the same reason, I'm not an agremlinist.]

One can only wish ...

One does not wish (or hope) for what one already sees is true. "... but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?" [Romans 8:24]

I hope you know I'm not arguing for atheism or against theism. I am certain there is no God, but my certainty is mine and only for me. You have to be convinced by your own best reason what is true and I have no business attempting convince you. Always enjoy the exchange of ideas.

RC

[Immanuel Can]

People react to patterns by default, whether through a response or ignoring the person. For every action there is some response.

Yeah, well, now you're a million miles from the Golden Rule.

Not really, both reciprocation and the Golden rule (which is to love others as one loves themself) are both moral loops.

Well, no. And you have the reasons why the GR isn't reciprocity. You can ignore them, but they'll still be there.

[Immanuel Can]

You asked me how I was certain. That's how. You cannot be certain of it that way, which is fine with me.

That's why I asked. It's not the kind of thing one can say one is "absolutely certain" about, because proving the non-existence of God would literally take all the knowledge in the universe, at all times and places, to know.

Prove to whom, IC? The purpose of proof is not to convince others, or even to convince oneself. The purpose of proof is to ensure one has not made a mistake in their own reasoning.

One cannot know even that much. One cannot know anything from somebody's claim of Atheism, except that they have an ungrounded, un-proof-supported personal desire that no God should exist. That's the limit.

As far as proof is concerned a question like, "are there non-physical spirits," or, "are there beings in some other worlds (heaven or nirvana, perhaps), or, "is there a God," if they cannot be disproved, are not legitimate subjects of rational proof. They are, in fact, all invalid hypotheses.

How unfortunate for the Atheist, then, if, as I would maintain, God has actually intervened in this world so as to reveal His existence, but the Atheist's gratuitous and logically-unsupportable refusal to consider the evidence should blind him to that fact.

On the other hand, the Theist has a much, much easier burden of proof. All he/she has to do is to show that at some time, at some place, just one genuine act of God happened. It could have been one creation, one miracle, one prayer answered, one intervention, one epiphany, one incarnation, one anything at all...and if that happened, then Atheism would be proved wrong conclusively.

If the fictions that others write, hallucinations and dreams that people have, and feelings for which one has no explanation, and coincidences are evidence to you, fine. [/quote]
It's not necessary that they all be. It is only necessary that one report of any activity of God should turn out to be genuine. One. Any one. Any one, at any time, by anybody. Any one such case proves Atheism wrong decisively and utterly.

I've yet to observe a single act of divine creation, answered prayer (though I know of tons of unanswered ones), mystical intervention, epiphany (although my cat frequently makes them--the word only means appearance), or incarnation. [I know the New Testament use of ἐπιφανείᾳ always refers to the "appearance" of Christ, except for one reference in Timothy, always referring to his "second coming." I'm sure you weren't there for the first epiphany.]

Well, I've yet to observe Pluto. But I understand that others have. And they've showed me pictures, which I may or may not believe. But the fact is that whether or not Pluto exists is not established by my personal experience of Pluto.

That one person has not had all the experiences that are to be had is surely the most unremarkable report one could make. It conduces to know conclusion but that he has not had a particular experience -- not that such an experience is irrational, unscientific, or not to be had by anyone else.

... one can never prove Atheism right

Atheism does not, as far as I know, assert anything that needs to be proved.[/quote]
Just the non-existence of God...which it cannot prove.

I do not believe there are gremlins dictating the future of the world. Do I have to prove it?

No. But let's not do reductio ad absurdum. Let's use something more plausible than gremlins. Let's say, Tasmanian tigers. Some people think they are utterly extinct, but a few hold out hope for their survival in some remote locale. Now, if you say, "I am absolutely certain no Tasmanian tigers have survived, any rational person would be perfectly reasonable to ask for the grounds of your certainty.

And saying, "Well, I've never seen one," would surely be an unimpressive retort, unlikely to satisfy any rational questioner.

I am certain there is no God,

See, there's the claim again. Not mere doubt, but certainty. Your choice of words. So your Atheism is not the kind that says, I merely "don't believe in any particular gods," it's a categorical denial of the existence of God, with "certainty" promised into the bargain.

Who could blame me for asking?

Always enjoy the exchange of ideas.

Very much. Always likewise.

[Lacewing]

One cannot know anything from somebody's claim of Atheism, except that they have an ungrounded, un-proof-supported personal desire that no God should exist.

So that's your distortion. No atheist would describe themselves that way at all, right?

How is it that you continually claim what atheism is or isn't, while you are NOT an atheist... nor are you the person you claim to be defining atheism for? Why do you think your viewpoint is more accurate than the people actually living it?

[Immanuel Can]

Why do you think your viewpoint is more accurate than the people actually living it?

Atheism is a remarkably simple belief, as its proponents loudly proclaim. It has only one precept: no God exists. I think you'll find that nobody likes you adding to that, and Atheists will, themselves, call you arbitrary if you do. They want their belief as "slim" as it can possibly be, because they thereby imagine it can be made immune to rational criticism. But of course, so long as it contains even one claim, it cannot.

[Lacewing]

Why do you think your viewpoint is more accurate than the people actually living it?

Atheism is a remarkably simple belief, as its proponents loudly proclaim. It has only one precept: no God exists. I think you'll find that nobody likes you adding to that, and Atheists will, themselves, call you arbitrary if you do. They want their belief as "slim" as it can possibly be, because they thereby imagine it can be made immune to rational criticism. But of course, so long as it contains even one claim, it cannot.

You didn't answer my question.

Your skewed claim was this: "they have an ungrounded, un-proof-supported personal desire that no God should exist". No atheist would explain atheism this way -- so why do you?

Your other skewed claim is this: "They want their belief...". How is the lack of something, a belief? Again, if atheists wouldn't describe it this way, why do you?

Why do you think your viewpoint and definitions are more accurate than the people actually living it?

[Immanuel Can]

You didn't answer my question.

Your skewed claim was this: "they have an ungrounded, un-proof-supported personal desire that no God should exist". No atheist would explain atheism this way -- so why do you?

Oh, I see.

Well, for very good reasons, no Atheist wants to tell himself the truth about Atheism. If he did, he'd realize he was being irrational, making a claim he could not defend, one that was indeed without grounds, support or anything, but was pure desire.

Who would want to admit that his cherished ideology was nothing but smoke and mirrors? And if he did tell himself the truth, and assuming he was a rational person, he'd instantly stop being an Atheist.

How is the lack of something, a belief?

You're wanting to redefine Atheism as "lack of God"? I've seen that one before.

Well, that's not what the word means, obviously, but I'll let you do that. Because it instantly results in some bizarre conclusions, including that things like rocks and cats are "Atheists," because, presumably, they also have a "lack" of that kind.

[Lacewing]

no Atheist wants to tell himself the truth about Atheism. If he did, he'd realize he was being irrational, making a claim he could not defend, one that was indeed without grounds, support or anything, but was pure desire.

This applies to Theists and Theism. They are the ones making claims based on desire.

Who would want to admit that his cherished ideology was nothing but smoke and mirrors? And if he did tell himself the truth, and assuming he was a rational person, he'd instantly stop being an Atheist.

Again, this applies to Theists.

How is the lack of something, a belief?

You're wanting to redefine Atheism as "lack of God"? I've seen that one before.

I asked you a simple question. Don't add more into it. Just answer what I asked, please.

Well, that's not what the word means, obviously, but I'll let you do that.

I'm not talking about the word. I'm talking about how people who lack any belief in a god, don't define that or themselves in the way that you are claiming.

So for the third time: "Why do you think your viewpoint and definitions are more accurate than the people actually living it?"

Is it all right for people to define what theism is for you? Why don't we let people define themselves and what they think?

[Immanuel Can]

no Atheist wants to tell himself the truth about Atheism. If he did, he'd realize he was being irrational, making a claim he could not defend, one that was indeed without grounds, support or anything, but was pure desire.

This applies to Theists and Theism. They are the ones making claims based on desire.

That's suppositional, on your part. If they have even one case of an act of God, then they're not. They're right, and Atheism is wrong.

But Atheism can't ever prove it's case. It's unfalsifiable and unprovable...irrational on both ends.

Well, that's not what the word means, obviously, but I'll let you do that.

I'm not talking about the word.

Then choose another word, because "Atheist" already has an analytical meaning. If you can't honour it, don't claim it.

"Why do you think your viewpoint and definitions are more accurate than the people actually living it?"

My definition is analytically correct. And if you think Atheists have another belief than that there is no God, tell me what you think I'm leaving out.

Is it all right for people to define what theism is for you?

Yep. So long as they respect the meaning of the word, and know my actual version of Theism.

But there is, according to Atheists, no "other version" of Atheism but the disbelief in God. So there's nothing more to know about Atheism.

Why don't we let people define themselves and what they think?

I am letting you redefine "Atheism." Again, I ask what you think, in addition to the denial of God's existence, that is a part of Atheism?

If you have nothing, then you've got no grounds to be complaining. So let's hear it.

[Lacewing]

Atheism can't ever prove it's case. It's unfalsifiable and unprovable...irrational on both ends.

From a non-theist position (which is how I think of it) there's no case to prove.

Atheism and Theism are just words. One refers to belief in a god, the other refers to no belief in a god. Beyond that, the defined possibilities are endless. So the specific notions you assign to either are your own creation. Many people see both differently than you do. It's THAT simple. Which is why I wonder why you continually fancy yourself as the all-knowing definer of all things.

I'm not talking about the word.

Then choose another word, because "Atheist" already has an analytical meaning. If you can't honour it, don't claim it.

My question was: "How is the lack of something, a belief?" Can you answer that?

"Why do you think your viewpoint and definitions are more accurate than the people actually living it?"

My definition is analytically correct. And if you think Atheists have another belief than that there is no God, tell me what you think I'm leaving out.

Are you purposefully avoiding answering the questions directly if at all?

Is it all right for people to define what theism is for you?

Yep. So long as they respect the meaning of the word, and know my actual version of Theism.

You do not seem like the kind of person who would want anyone defining anything for you.

And that's why I would think you'd have more awareness and respect that non-theists don't want you defining anything for them. Language and words are limited without more words to provide context and meaning. So I don't understand your obsession with battling over a "word" and what you claim it concludes about people beyond simple non-theism? Your additional conclusions are a skewed product of your beliefs, but you seem to deny this. Which seems to say that you think your own views and definitions are more accurate than those of the people you're defining. True? If so, how can you think that way?

Is your need so strong to dismantle and invalidate any non-theist thinking? Why? What difference does it make?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why do you think your viewpoint is more accurate than the people actually living it?

Atheism is a remarkably simple belief, as its proponents loudly proclaim. It has only one precept: no God exists. I think you'll find that nobody likes you adding to that, and Atheists will, themselves, call you arbitrary if you do. They want their belief as "slim" as it can possibly be, because they thereby imagine it can be made immune to rational criticism. But of course, so long as it contains even one claim, it cannot.

Atheists or non-theists do not have to do any proving 'God does not exist'.
In addition, it is not the protocol in this case to prove a negative claim.
The onus is on the one who make the positive claim to provide proofs.

The logical reason is the theists' claim 'God exists' is an impossibility to be real.
'God exists as real' cannot even be initiated as a hypothesis at all.
The question of 'God exists as real' is a contradiction and a non-starter.

God is an Impossibility to be Real Empirically and Philosophically
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704&p=367812&hil ... ty#p367812

The only valid reasons and causes why theists believe in a God as real is due to psychological reasons grounded on the need to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.